Ashley St. Clair says she rejected an alleged non-disclosure agreement (NDA) worth roughly $40 million linked to Elon Musk because signing it would have restricted what she could say publicly. At the Venice Film Festival, she described the alleged arrangement simply: 'I was offered the opportunity not to speak for $40 million.'
The former conservative influencer, who shares a child with Musk, made the remarks at a press conference on 8 September ahead of the world premiere of Alex Gibney's documentary, Musk.
Musk has since directly disputed her account. Responding on X to a TMZ post about the alleged NDA, he wrote: 'She was never offered that and has a history of making false claims.'
St. Clair Says NDA Was Tied to a Financial Package
St. Clair had previously described the alleged arrangement during a June appearance on The Don Lemon Show. She said Musk initially sent a message instructing his wealth manager, Jared Birchall, to arrange $15 million for a home and reserve capital.
According to St. Clair, Birchall later told her that receiving the money would require an NDA. She said the proposed package eventually became $15 million upfront plus $100,000 a month for 20 years, a total of $39 million, or roughly $40 million.
St. Clair also alleged that parts of the discussions took place through disappearing Signal messages and that the agreement would have restricted her from speaking about Musk, his employees and affiliates.
Earlier reporting by The Wall Street Journal previously described negotiations over financial support and confidentiality that were broadly consistent with parts of St. Clair's later account. In April 2025, the newspaper reported that Musk had offered St. Clair $15 million plus $100,000 a month in support in exchange for keeping their child and aspects of their relationship private.
The Journal's reporting does not, however, establish every term St. Clair later described on Lemon's show. No signed NDA setting out the complete alleged terms has been made public.
Why Ashley St. Clair Says She Refused the Deal
At Venice, St. Clair framed her decision as a matter of principle. She said the alleged offer made her consider the value of being able to speak openly and the example she wanted to set for her children.
Her appearance forms part of Gibney's broader examination of Musk's businesses, political influence and ownership of X.
The nearly four-hour documentary uses an AI-generated representation of Musk speaking words drawn from statements he has previously made. Gibney said the filmmakers consulted lawyers before using the technique.
The film also examines Musk's 2022 acquisition of Twitter, now X. Gibney and technology journalist Zoë Schiffer argue that changes to the platform's algorithms have amplified inflammatory material and reduced the visibility of some mainstream journalism.
Those are assessments made by the documentary's participants rather than independently established findings. St. Clair similarly accused Musk of using X in ways that encourage social division, an assessment that remains her own.
Musk Directly Denies the $40M NDA Claim
Musk had criticised Gibney's documentary before its Venice premiere, describing the filmmaker as biased and predicting that the project would portray him negatively. Reuters reported that Gibney approached Musk for an interview when production began, but Musk declined.
His 9 September response went further by addressing St. Clair's NDA allegation directly. Musk said she had 'never' been offered the arrangement and accused her of making false claims. He did not provide further detail in that response.
The central point therefore remains disputed. St. Clair says she was offered a financial package approaching $40 million alongside confidentiality restrictions, while earlier Wall Street Journal reporting described a $15 million payment plus monthly support linked to confidentiality. Musk now denies that she was ever offered the $40 million NDA she describes.
Without publication of the proposed agreement or other documentary evidence establishing its complete terms, the precise nature of the alleged deal remains unresolved.
