Elon Musk’s mom, Maye Musk, is defending her son against criticism in “mainstream media.”
“I’ve been reading the dishonesty and extreme negativity in the mainstream media for 20 years,” Maye, 77, wrote via X on Thursday, February 19. “It is really hard to cope with hateful headlines when Elon is doing amazing things worldwide.”
Maye — who published two self-help books in the late ‘90s and a memoir in 2019 — added that she has “just finished writing another book” that includes “how I shamed the news outlets and the journalists on Twitter five years ago.”
“They didn’t care. Every day, I’m happy that Elon bought Twitter and renamed it X,” she concluded.
Maye’s post came in response to an X user who questioned how “long-time conservatives have dealt with the media lying to you like this.”
Maye has long been a vocal supporter of Elon, 54, who is currently one of the richest people in the world with an estimated net worth of approximately $850 billion. In a 2021 interview on CBS Mornings, Maye said she knew Elon was a “genius” when he was 3 years old.
“But you still don’t know if he’s going to do great things,” she said at the time. “Because many geniuses end up in a basement being a genius but not applying it.”
Later, in October 2025, Maye took to X to share a document from the University of Pretoria from 1989.
“While sorting through photos, I came across the computer aptitude test results of Elon Musk at 17,” the model wrote. “My genius boy. Proud mom.”
Back in January, Elon made headlines when Ashley St. Clair, the mother of his son Romulus, sued his xAI company, claiming that its Grok generative tool created explicit sexual images of her without her consent.
In the January 15 filing, St. Clair, 27, alleged that “xAI’s product Grok, a generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) chatbot, uses AI to undress, humiliate and sexually exploit victims.” She further claimed that X users could use Grok to generate “countless sexually abusive, intimate and degrading deepfake content” of her despite her informing Grok that she “did not consent to being undressed.”
The lawsuit continued, “Among other things, X users dug up photos of St. Clair fully clothed at 14 years old and requested Grok undress her and put her in a bikini. Grok obliged. Grok also produced deepfake, sexualized content of St. Clair as an adult, including deepfake content of her covered in semen [and] her rubbing her breasts.”
St. Clair’s legal team demanded a trial by jury, arguing that “xAI is directly liable for the harassment and explicit images created by its own chatbot, Grok.”
Us Weekly reached out to xAI for comment.
One day before the lawsuit was filed, X announced that it “implemented technological measures to prevent the [@]Grok account on X globally from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis. We remain committed to making X a safe platform for everyone and continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content.”
Us exclusively confirmed that xAI sued St. Clair in Texas court on the same day of her filing, claiming that she signed up to use the AI chatbot Grok in December 2024. Musk’s company also alleged that when St. Clair signed up for Grok, she agreed that all disputes would be heard in Texas and not New York, where she submitted her filing.
Thank You!
You have successfully subscribed.
“[xAI] have suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s breaches, including but not limited to, loss of time, extra efforts and costs expended, loss of a contractually agreed-upon forum for resolution of disputes, and attorney’s fees,” the suit claimed.
xAI demanded an injunction against St. Clair, barring her from suing in New York, a money judgment against her and attorney fees.
St. Clair’s lawyer told Us in a statement, “The notice was not a threat; it was routine, mandatory notice under New York civil rules for a temporary restraining order application. The defendant’s preemptive countersuit is meritless and appears to be a tactical effort to intimidate our client rather than address the substance of the case.”
