According to Zhitong Finance APP, after weeks of a subpoena standoff, Elon Musk's SpaceX (SPCX.US) has finally agreed to appear before the New York City Council's Technology Committee this Friday to face questioning on artificial intelligence safety risks. This long-delayed testimony pushes SpaceX's AI division into the global regulatory spotlight and exposes the position of this space giant, valued at over $2 trillion, caught between capital exuberance and compliance pressure.

From "sole absentee" to forced appearance

In mid-September, New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin sent voluntary testimony invitations to five of the world's largest AI companies. Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Meta all confirmed their attendance, but only SpaceX's AI division did not respond. On September 28, Menin formally issued a subpoena to SpaceX, the first time she had exercised the City Council's subpoena power. The October 5 hearing lasted nearly ten hours, with representatives from the four major AI companies testifying under oath and facing intense questioning from council members, but SpaceX did not appear. Menin stated on the spot that the company was in a state of "direct violation of the subpoena." The City Council subsequently informed SpaceX that it planned to request the state Supreme Court to enforce the subpoena. Two days later, SpaceX proactively requested a meeting and ultimately agreed to attend this Friday's hearing.

This hearing is not a mere formality. The City Council is deliberating 10 AI regulatory legislative proposals, with core provisions including: all AI systems sold or deployed in New York City must be equipped with a human-operable "kill switch," with violators fined $25,000 per instance; mandatory third-party verification; and a first-in-the-nation AI whistleblower bounty system, under which whistleblowers can receive a share of fines. The City Council is also considering a proposal to create a private right of action for individuals harmed by AI.

The deeper backdrop of this investigation is the long-standing stagnation of AI legislation at the federal level in the United States. Congress has held numerous AI hearings over the years but has never passed substantive AI safety legislation. Menin's assessment is unequivocal: "Given what is at stake, these companies have an obligation to come before the Council and answer questions under oath." New York City is not the only actor, but its legislative ambitions are clearly greater. Unlike the EU AI Act, which focuses on risk classification, New York City's proposals place greater emphasis on enforcement mechanisms — the kill switch addresses "what happens when something goes wrong," third-party verification addresses "who checks before deployment," and whistleblower bounties address "who exposes internal problems that regulators cannot see." Together, these three form a closed loop from prevention to detection to accountability.

The intersection of capital feast and compliance reefs

SpaceX is currently caught in an intense tug-of-war between its capital narrative and regulatory pressure. On the same day the hearing news emerged, Space Capital released a report predicting that, driven by SpaceX's record-breaking IPO, defense spending, and space infrastructure demand, global space economy investment is expected to break the $100 billion annual threshold for the first time in 2026. This forecast comes from Space Capital's latest analysis of third-quarter spending. Beyond quantifying investment scale, the report also noted that the number of space companies reaching "unicorn" valuations is hitting a historic high. "We all thought 2021 was a crazy hot market," said Space Capital CEO Chad Anderson, referring to the SPAC trading frenzy at the time. "But compared to what's happening now, that was just a flash in the pan."

SpaceX listed on Nasdaq on June 12 at an issue price of $135, raising approximately $75 billion, with its market capitalization surpassing $2 trillion on the first day of trading and subsequently climbing to approximately $2.2 trillion. But the other side of the capital influx is accumulating risk. Anderson also warned that some space companies' business models are built on uncertain variables, such as over-reliance on SpaceX's Starship launch capability, which he called "a major risk." This logic applies equally to SpaceX itself — the regulatory risk of its AI division is becoming an insufficiently priced variable in its valuation. SpaceX has explicitly disclosed in its prospectus that xAI faces "substantial regulatory risk," involving the EU AI Act, California's frontier AI legislation, and related New York State legislation. The regulatory storm triggered by Grok in early 2026 was even more direct: the UK's communications regulator and the European Commission both launched formal investigations, and the UK privacy regulator subsequently initiated an independent probe. Attorneys general from 35 states jointly signed a letter demanding that xAI take action to prevent Grok from generating child sexual abuse material. At the federal level, some Pentagon agencies have already used Grok models on a limited basis, extending the regulatory controversy from "consumer protection" to "national security procurement."

What to watch at Friday's hearing

Friday's hearing will be the first time SpaceX publicly answers questions on AI safety under oath. Lawmakers are expected to press on three core questions: How does the company assess catastrophic AI risks? What mechanism can prevent the company from continuing to release models when safety reviews have not been passed? If an AI system causes serious harm, who bears responsibility? Last week's hearing already provided a reference — representatives from the four major AI companies all failed to give quantitative answers on catastrophic risks and generally avoided committing to "whether a failed safety review automatically shelves a model." Whether SpaceX's response will differ is worth watching.