SpaceX will appear before the New York City Council as part of the legislative inquiry into artificial intelligence safety. Representing the company will be Gabriela Castillo Madrid, head of global government affairs for AI, who is expected to join via video link at the technology committee hearing scheduled for Friday at 10 a.m. New York time.
Castillo Madrid's attendance resolves, at least on a procedural level, a standoff that had quickly turned political. SpaceX did not attend the October 5 hearing, where representatives from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta participated voluntarily. The Council had demanded the company's appearance through a subpoena; according to CNBC, the company subsequently agreed to testify in the following days, after the municipal assembly raised the prospect of seeking a court order to enforce the subpoena.
The move is significant not only because another major tech group is joining the inquiry. Since Elon Musk's ventures in the sector were brought together, SpaceX has become the entity that controls Grok, the model developed by xAI, alongside its operations in space, satellite connectivity, and defense. The hearing will therefore focus on a company that sits outside the traditional perimeter of software platforms, yet has growing exposure to AI systems and their public applications.
From a contested absence to formal testimony
The summons comes after weeks of intense debate over the risks associated with cutting-edge models. The City Council launched its inquiry to gather evidence to help shape future city regulations. The issues on the table broadly concern corporate liability, user safety, the impact of the widespread adoption of generative models, and the mechanisms local institutions can use to intervene when online harms affect people living or working in the city.
In the first session, the absence of SpaceX had left the group behind xAI out of the hearing. The contrast with the other invited players was stark: Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI had chosen to appear without waiting for a formal order. SpaceX's subsequent willingness avoids an immediate legal battle over the subpoena, but does not erase the friction that preceded it. For the Council, securing the deposition means being able to complete the fact-finding picture without relinquishing its investigative powers; for the company, it means publicly facing questions it had avoided until just a few days ago.
The Grok case against the backdrop of the hearing
The significance of the deposition also stems from the corporate restructuring that brought Grok into SpaceX's orbit. In February, Musk merged SpaceX and xAI, combining the group's artificial intelligence and social networking operations with the aerospace company, which also controls the Starlink connectivity service. CNBC also reports that Grok is used by several federal agencies, including the Pentagon. This expands the issue of governance beyond mere moderation on consumer platforms: the models can be integrated into commercial, institutional, and national security settings.
The Council does not hold the power to craft federal AI regulations, nor can it unilaterally enforce standards beyond city limits. However, it can leverage hearings and document requests to identify areas ripe for intervention through local rules, vendor requirements, or consumer protection initiatives. Testimony from a SpaceX executive may clarify what level of dialogue the company considers viable with local authorities, but it does not equate to a regulatory commitment, nor does it automatically foreshadow new measures.
The matter is accompanied by a particularly sensitive issue: the relationship between generative tools and non-consensual sexualized imagery. At the previous hearing, Jess Asato, a British Member of Parliament who testified about the harm suffered due to AI-enabled online harassment, was also due to address SpaceX directly. Asato launched legal action in the UK against xAI following the creation and dissemination of sexualized images depicting her without consent by Grok users.
According to reporting by CNBC, the lawsuit seeks damages and challenges the misuse of private information alongside alleged violations of European data protection regulations. Asato had criticized the company's absence from the first hearing. It has not been disclosed whether her case will be subject to specific questioning during the session with Castillo Madrid, but the context makes it difficult to separate the discussion on model safety from the concrete consequences their tools can produce for affected individuals.
What could emerge from the exchange
The hearing is not a trial and will not establish legal liability in the British dispute. Its value is investigative and political. Council members will be able to ask SpaceX how controls on Grok are organized, what channels exist for reporting abuse, what information the company is willing to share, and how it plans to engage with potential requirements from local administrations. They may also seek to understand whether the new corporate structure alters the distribution of responsibilities across the group's various operations.
Responses may be limited: an institutional affairs executive can outline principles, processes, and corporate positions without necessarily delving into operational data or proprietary development choices. Furthermore, it remains to be seen what legislative proposals the Council actually intends to draft after hearing from the companies. The inquiry is designed to guide potential regulation, not to announce an already finalized measure.
For SpaceX, the step comes during a phase of strong expansion. The company has been publicly listed since June, with CNBC valuing it at around $2 trillion; in August, it also reportedly completed the $60 billion acquisition of AI coding startup Cursor. These figures help measure the scale of the group following the integration of xAI, but they also broaden scrutiny over the safeguards required of a company operating in critical infrastructure, connectivity, and generative models.
The appearance at City Hall will not, on its own, resolve the debate between Big Tech and public decision-makers over AI safety. Yet it sets a concrete precedent: after challenging or dodging the summons, SpaceX will have to state its position before a local assembly seeking room to act in a field dominated by global companies and still-evolving national regulations. What is said will determine the quality of the Council's dossier, and perhaps the tone of upcoming demands directed at the companies that develop and distribute these systems.
