Why Doesn't Elon Musk Care About His Philanthropic Legacy?

In a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article, Scott Curran examines Elon Musk’s philanthropic record and the opportunity his extraordinary wealth presents. Drawing on the legacies of some of history’s most prominent philanthropists, Scott makes the case that lasting impact requires more than wealth—it requires stewardship, intentional giving, and a commitment to strengthening society.

With his nearly $1 trillion fortune, he could out-give the robber barons and still be the richest man on earth. Instead he can’t even clear the IRS’ lowest charitable bar.

By Scott M. Curran

Throughout modern history, extraordinary wealth has carried an expectation of extraordinary stewardship. 

The industrialists of the Gilded Age were often ruthless competitors and deeply imperfect human beings. Yet many eventually embraced a civic responsibility that extended beyond their businesses. Andrew Carnegie built libraries. John D. Rockefeller funded medical research and public health. Milton Hershey established schools and charitable trusts. Across the Atlantic, the Guinness family invested in housing and community development. Ford, Kellogg, MacArthur — the list goes on, as do their charitable foundations.

These men were far from saints. But they did grasp the connection between wealth, stewardship, and philanthropy. They also understood that great fortunes are built atop institutions that they did not, and could not, create alone. Society has long expected its most successful corporate builders to become civic builders as well. And this tradition continues today with the likes of Bloomberg, Ballmer, Walton, Gates, Omidyar, Powell Jobs, Chan/Zuckerberg and so on — each busy with their philanthropic and wider social impact work.

Elon Musk would be wise to follow their example. Even after a dip in SpaceX stock erased his trillionaire status, Musk’s staggering fortune, which currently sits around $900 billion, would make the robber barons burn with envy. 

Musk didn’t become the world’s richest man for nothing. He made a career of shaping the future through bold and brash entrepreneurial ventures, from fintech and clean energy to space exploration and AI.

Lackluster philanthropy 

But Musk’s astronomical wealth has not translated into a strong philanthropic record. The Musk Foundation — one of the largest in the United States, with roughly $14 billion in assets — generates headlines not for making a positive impact on the world but because it has consistently failed to give away even the bare minimum per year required by law. In other words, the world’s richest person can’t be bothered to clear even the lowest charitable bar mandated by the IRS. Moreover, the money the Musk Foundation does manage to give away reportedly goes largely to organizations and initiatives that align with the business interests of its namesake, which suggests that one clear beneficiary of the foundation is, yes, Elon Musk.

But as a man who clearly aims to be at the top of every endeavor he undertakes, why settle for a decidedly lackluster philanthropic legacy? In fact, there’s no reason Musk couldn’t become the world’s biggest philanthropist — even if only through the foundation he’s already gone to the trouble to create — and history’s most innovative civic and social impact leader. He could do all that and still have more money than anyone else on earth. 

Musk could start by expanding his philanthropic portfolio in areas that touch on his own passions. For example, he feels strongly about population growth and often warns that declining birth rates represent one of humanity’s greatest long-term risks. Fair enough. But each day, as many as 1,000 children die from unsafe water and inadequate sanitation. And this is a problem humanity already has the tools to solve. 

If population growth really matters to Musk, keeping existing children alive seems like it would be a high-return investment. He could commit massive resources to addressing the global water and sanitation crisis and it would only amount to a financial rounding error for him. That’s to say nothing of the follow-on effect that would surely result from both his example and his ability to rally others to similar causes. Just imagine if he decided he wanted to use his riches to cure cancer, fight ​infectious disease, and feed starving people in the developing world. The possibilities are endless, and the needs never greater. 

Transactional giving

None of this would require Musk to become a humanitarian idealist. Indeed, there’s reason to believe that Musk isn’t wired like those captains of industry who truly believed in the power of doing good. In that case, he could approach philanthropy through a purely transactional lens. Stronger communities create stronger markets. The arts, for instance, help create healthier societies. Healthier societies create more solid customers, employees, and institutions. Every billionaire depends on educated workers, scientific discovery, functioning infrastructure, stable communities, public institutions, and the rule of law. These are civilizational assets, and they require constant investment. 

If bettering humanity or boosting the economy isn’t motivation enough, perhaps Musk could be spurred to action by the chance to cement his legacy, which has been tarnished by his increasingly controversial positions, conspiratorial thinking, DOGE debacle, and awkward, if inconsistent, presence in U.S. and global politics. Legacy, after all, is why Musk’s Gilded Age forebears donated huge sums of their wealth to noble causes, essentially guaranteeing their immortality. Today we remember Musk’s industrialist predecessors less for their faults — say, violent union-busting or antisemitism — than for the money they poured into scientific research, libraries, academic institutions, and the arts.

The question is no longer whether Musk can change the future — he is already well on his way. The more relevant question, and also the more important one, is whether he intends to help sustain the society that enabled his success in the first place. If the answer is yes, he has a clear path to follow, historic precedent on his side, and every resource imaginable at his disposal. 

All of which is to say that the world’s first trillionaire has an opportunity to establish a new model of civic leadership for the 21st century. Wealth alone will not place Musk alongside Carnegie, Rockefeller, or Ford. But stewardship would.