This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones.<p>On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. It seems more than a little absurd to argue that SpaceX - unlike literally every other defense contractor - should both be footing most of the bill for the service and should have no say over how the service is then used.<p>Then, adding on to that, there's a huge difference in terms of regulations between a US company essentially supplying long range guidance systems (and ongoing services which enable those systems) of its own volition to a foreign nation involved in a war and a US company contracted by the DoD to supply the same. This should especially considered in the context that the US has been extremely careful in limiting the range of the weapons it has supplied to Ukraine (with exactly the same reasoning SpaceX has used of not wanting to enable an escalation in the conflict), while Starlink is able to handle guidance well beyond that.<p>This idiotic senator might as well be asking how they can trust ULA to keep launching satellites for the DoD when they won't unconditionally launch Rwanda's 300k satellite megaconstellation for free.