May 20, 2025 • 41 mins
On stage at the Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday, editor at large for Bloomberg Weekend Mishal Husain conducted a nearly 40-minute, wide-ranging interview with billionaire Elon Musk.
Husain asked Musk about his future at Tesla, his ongoing feud with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the possibility of Starlink going public and more. At times, the conversation grew heated, particularly when Mishal asked about reports of his communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'm David Gera and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Today.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
On the show, we're bringing you a special conversation in full.
Elon Musk spoke with Mishaal Hussein, editor at Large for
Bloomberg Weekend at the Cutter Economic Forum. Musk joined remote
Lea from Austin, wearing his signature dark jacket with a
fur collar. The interview covered a lot of ground, from
the billionaire's future at Tesla to his ongoing feud with
(00:33):
open Ai CEO Sam Altman and the possibility of Starlink
going public. At times, the conversation grew heated, particularly when
Michall asked about Starlink operating in South Africa, Musk's country
of birth, and about reports of his communication with Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Hello everyone and Elon Musk, Welcome to cut Their Economic Forum.
How are you?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Thank you for having me. I'm fine, How are you?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Very well? Thank you and very pleased to have you
with us. You know, among those here in the audience
in Doha are some you will know people who have
backed to you financially over the years since you last
spoke here in twenty twenty two, A lot has changed
in your life. You're not only running multiple companies. You
were doing that then, but now you also have a
role in government. So, first of all, I hope you
(01:20):
don't mind it. From time to time I have to
move you from one topic to another because we have
a lot to cover in the time we have. That
will be all right, Okay, Well, let's start then with
exactly the fact that you now have this combination of
being a CEO and having a role as a government advisor.
Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's
(01:40):
the split of your time?
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon
Valley yesterday morning. I was in Lasa evening, I mean
Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll be
there having dinner with Presidence tomorrow night, I believe, and
then a much of cabinet secrety meetings and then back
(02:06):
to Sloton Valley on Thursday night.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
But I mean, the balance of your time is it? Well,
clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case
as you said a while ago, that it's about one
to two days a week on your government work. Yeah,
that's correct, And what does that mean for your corporate life?
Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered
(02:30):
in recent months what you've called blowback. So what is
your plan for turning that around? The declining sales picture?
And by what stage do you think you're going to
be able to turn it around?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Oh, it's already to turn around.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking
at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show
very significant declines in the big markets.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Europe is our weakest market.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
We're stronger everywhere else, so our sales are doing doing
well at this point.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
We don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
And the you know, the obviously the stock market recognizes
that since we're now back over a trillion dollars in
market cap, so really the market is aware of the situation.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
So it's it's already turned around.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
But sales still down compared to this time last year.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
In Europe.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
In Europe, okay, and.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
Yes, but that's that's true of all manufacturers, there's no exceptions.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Does that mean you're it's quite weak?
Speaker 1 (03:45):
Okay, but you would acknowledge. Woudn't you that what you
are facing. Okay, let's just take it as Europe what
you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla is
an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it. It saw it,
They saw it it being at the forefront of the climate.
And now people are driving around with stickers in their
cars saying I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
And there are also people who are by buying it
because Elon's crazy, or however they may view it. So, yes,
we've lost some sales, perhaps on the left, but we've
gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this
point are strong and we've seen no problem with them
had so what I mean? You can just look at
(04:27):
the stock price if you want the best inside information.
The stock market analysts have that, and our stock wouldn't
be trading near all time ice if it was not.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
If things weren't in good shape. They're fine, don't worry
about it.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Okay, I was citing sales figures rather than share price. Well,
tell me then, how committed you are to Tesla. Do
you see yourself and now you committed to still being
the chief executive of Tesla in five years time. Yes,
no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well, no, I might die.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Okay, sure to that.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Let me see you if I'm dead. So the slighter mode.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't
have any bearing on your decision?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Well, that's not really subject discussion in this forum. The
I think, obviously there should be a conversation for if
there's something incredible is done, that compensation should match.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
That something incredible was done.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
But I'm confident that whatever the whatever some activists posing
as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not
affect the future compensation.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty
six billion a pay package that was that was awarded
to you. I think the value on the basis on
the current value of stock options.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Yeah, not a judge, not a judge.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
The activist who is cars playing a judge in a
Halloween costume.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Okay, that's your characterization. I think the value on the
current value of stock options.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
I think the actual justice according to the law, on the.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Current value of stock options. I think the value of
that pay package stands at about one hundred billion dollars.
Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of
your future pay package. Your decision to be committed to
Tesla for the next five years as long as you
are still with us on this planet is completely independent
of pay. No, it's not independent, So pay is a
(06:49):
relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted
by activists investors is what matter to me. And I've
said this publicly many times, but let's not have this
whole thing be a discussion of my list pay.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
It's not a money thing. It's a reasonable.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Control thing over the future of the company, especially for
building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. I can't be
sitting there and weren't going.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
To get tossed out by for political reasons by activists.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
That will be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now, let's
move on.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Okay, Well, just one question, well one question before we
move on to other companies, which is that I wonder
if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in
the last few months, did you take it personally?
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (07:44):
And did it make you regret any of you all
think twice about your political endeavors because it is I.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Did what needed to be done, the violent antibody reaction,
and I'm not someone who's ever committed violence, and yet
massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was
threatened against me.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Who are these people? Why would they do that? How
wrong can they be?
Speaker 4 (08:24):
They're on the wrong on the wrong side of history,
and that's an evil thing to do to go and
damage some point intocent person's car, to threaten to kill me.
What's wrong with these people? I have not harmed anyone,
So something needs to be done about them, and a
(08:46):
number of them are going to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla's showrooms,
but I think.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
Well, it's into showrooms and burning down cause unacceptable. Those
people will go to prison, and the people that funded
them and organized them will also go to prison.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Don't worry, wouldn't you wouldn't you wouldn't wouldn't you acknowledge
that some of the people who turned against Tesla in
Europe were were upset at your politics, and very few
of them would have been violent in any way. They
just objected to what they saw you say or do politically.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and
hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay.
You know, that's absurd. That is in no way justifiable
at all in any way, shape or form. And some
(09:55):
of the the legacy media and nonetheless have sort of
justified which is unconscionable. Shame on them.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
After the break, my colleague Michelle Hussein's interview with Elon
Musk continues. He talks about his long standing feud with
Open AI and its CEO Sam Altman, and his track
record on calling for more AI regulation. You're listening to
(10:22):
Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at the Qatar Economic Forum.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Let's talk about your other companies, then another business area, SpaceX.
I saw that you said in a speech at the
West Point Military Academy recently that the future of warfare
is AI and drones, and obviously defense is an increasingly
booming sector with the state of the world at the moment.
(10:47):
Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 4 (10:58):
Yeah, so, as they ask interesting questions that are impossible
to answer, so SpaceX is is.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
The space launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals, so SpaceX has
a very dominant position in space launch. So of the
mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably do,
(11:33):
China will do the remain half of the remaining amounts
of five percent, and the rest of the world, including
the rest of the US, will do about five percent.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
So SpaceX will do about ten times as much as.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
The rest of the world combined, or twenty times as
much as China, which is in China is doing actually
a very impressive job. The reason for this is that
we're putting it into orbit the largest satellite constellation the
world has ever seen by far, so I think at
this point about maybe approaching eighty stable active satellites in
orbit our SpaceX and they're providing high high vand with
(12:05):
global connectivity throughout the world. In fact, this connection is
on a SpaceX connection. So I think this is a
very good thing because it means that we can provide
low cost my bandwidth Internet to parts of the world.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
That don't have it or it's very expensive.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
And I think the single biggest thing you can do
to lift people out of poverty and help them is
giving them an Internet connection, because once you have the
internet connection, you can.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Learn anything for free on the Internet, and you.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
Can also sell your goods and services to the global market.
And once you have knowledge by the Internet and the
ability to engage in commerce, that this is going to
greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
And it has.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience
who may have been helpful, and you know, we're starlink
and getting it to approved in the country, and I
think it's doing a lot of good in the countries
that have approved, which is I think this point one
hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it. I
don't currently into spate space actually getting into the weapons business.
That's certainly that's not an aspiration. We're frequent we're frequently
(13:17):
asked to do to do weapons programs, but we have
dost part a client.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed starlink as a separate
entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
in the future, and what would be.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
The what would be the time frame, what kind of
time frame you consider it.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
I mean no rush, I mean no rush to your public.
The public is I guess a way to you know,
potentially make more money, but at the expense of a
lot of public company overhead and inevitably.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
A whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
So there's really something needs to be done about the
share shareholder shareholder derivative lawsuits in the US because it
allows plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to
pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet
plaintiff for a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit
against the company, and the irony being that extreme irony
(14:29):
that even if the class they purport to represent were
to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit
will still continue.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
So how can it be.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
A class action representing a class if the class were
against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in
the US that needs a dire ney to reform. As
anyone's running a public company, you've experienced this, It's an
absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it. You've
certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this
to him. Is this something you're trying to change before
any starlink.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
IPO, Well, we need a law to be passed.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
The trouble being that Judeen sixty Senate Senate votes and
the Democrats will vote against it. The plaintiffs bar is
I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
That's the that's the issue. At the state level, this
(15:31):
can be solved, and I should say Texas recently passed
a law which at least the state level made a
class action lawsuits much more reasonable because you have to
get at least one in thirty three shareholders to agree
that they are part of a class of shareholders three percent.
This is will be really helped with privileged lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
OK.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Let's talk about AI, which is in so many of
you businesses and in all our worlds in different ways.
It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI.
Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago,
you're in this space of course with GROP which almost
everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
(16:18):
and you've obviously got a legal battle with open ai
and Sam Altman. I wonder if you could say something
about the status of that, because you were together in
Saudi Arabia with the president last week with Sam Altman
in the same place at the same.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Time in the neighborhood.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Okay, So does that mean you are pushing ahead with
the lawsuit against open Ai.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yes. So I came up with the name open ai
as an open source and as a nonprofit, and I
founded ai opening app for the first roughly fifty million dollars,
and it was intended to be a nonprofit, open source company,
and now is they're trying to change that for their
(17:07):
own financial benefit into a for profit company that is
closed source. So this would be like, let's.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
Say you you finded a nonprofit to help preserve the
Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a
lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the word.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I founded.
That's opening Eye.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
They've made some changes to their corporate instructure, though, haven't
they since in recognition of of what you've said.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
And now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Okay, part they have part they have partly walked back
their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made
no difference to how you feel about it. So you
determined to see.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Them in court of course.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Okay, well that's said going to be one to watch.
I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation
because when you were here last talking to John Mickelfwait,
you had some pretty strong words about the risk that
AI poses and you said that you really felt what
the US was missing was a federal AI regulator that
(18:18):
you know, something along lines of the Food and Drug
Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now you're clearly now
in a zone where you're more you're more on the
cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your
view changed on the need for an AI regulator.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Well that I don't think there should be regulators. You
can think of regulators like referees on the on the
field in sports, there should be some number of referees,
but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you
can't kick the ball without hitting one.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
So in many in most.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown over
time to the point where it's like having more referees
than players on the field. So and This is a
natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
It's very important to apro appreciate this. This has happened
throughout history.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
When you have an extended period of prosperity with no
existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the
for unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that
every year more laws and more regulations are pasted, because
you know, legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going
(19:35):
to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of
more and more laws and regulations of a time until
everything is illegal. And let me give you an example
of a truly absurd situation. Under the Biden administration, SpaceX
was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now,
(19:58):
the problem is, it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itart
in National Traffic and Arms Regulations to hire anyone who
is not a permanent resident of the United States, because
the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology
and return to their home country if they're not a
permanent resident.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
So we're simultaneously.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
In a situation where it's illegal to hire slams used
and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the
Partner of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths
being illegal.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Down if you do, down if you don't.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI,
which you said three years ago was needed, and you
said we need to be proactive on the regulation of
AI rather than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that?
Speaker 3 (20:47):
No, of course not. What No, of course not. What
I'm saying is that there should be some referees on
the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have a
field jam packed with referees such so you could not
kick a ball in any direction without hitting one. So
the the fields that have been around for a long time,
such as automotive, so aerospace, you know if the sort
(21:13):
of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new
fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated. In fact, there is
no regulator at all.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
So they should be. Do you still think that.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Yes, I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic
common sense that you that you want to have at
least you want to have a few referees in the field.
You don't want to have an army of referees. But
you want to have a few referees on any given field,
in any given sport, or even any given arena, industrial arena,
to ensure help that public safety is taken care of.
(21:50):
But you don't have so there's an't, there's an't, there's
a proper number of referees. Like I said, it's actually
very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If
the whole field is packed with referees, that would look absurd.
But if there were no referees at all, your game
is not going to be as good.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your
role advising government. You are in this unique and unprecedented
position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with
the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX, and also now
an insider's knowledge of it because of dose. Can you
(22:29):
see that there is a conflict of interest or a
potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through that
very fact?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Actually, there have been many advisors throughout history and the
US government and others who have had economic interests, and
I absolutely an advisor. I don't have a formal power,
and that's a president can choose.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
To accept my advice or not. And that's that's how
it goes.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
If there's a single contract that of my companies that
have received that people think is somehow not was awarded improperly,
it would immediately be front page news, to say the least.
And if I hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would.
So if you're not seeing that, then the clill is
(23:22):
not a complex to interest.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
The Yeah, there's another way though to look at it.
That For example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies
like Boeing or companies would like to do more of
the kind of work you do for NASA Blue Origin
Rocket Lab. And because DOGE is in every federal government department,
you or people who work for DOGE and you are
(23:48):
the driving force behind it, have an insight into those companies'
affairs and those companies' relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Now, all we do as we review the organization to
see if the organization has.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Departments that are no longer relevant and and then are
the contracts that that are being awarded good value for money?
In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. Is
there any value money in a contract? And if there's
if there isn't, then we make recommendations to the secretary.
The Secretary can choose to take those actions or not
(24:28):
take those actions, and that's it. And then any action
that that that is as a function of DOGE is
posted to the DOGE website and to the DOGE dog
Govt at DOGE handle on the x platform. So it's
it's complete transparency. And I have not seen any case
where the best min not has even been an accusation
(24:50):
of conflict because it is.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
It is completely and utterly transparent. That's it.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
And what about the international dimension, Now, let's think about style.
Stalink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's
sought after all over the world. It's critical to the
frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming
its way, and there is some evidence that companies are
allowing access to it because they want to be close
(25:17):
to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So
Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is
working around their rules on black ownership in order to
allow starlinkin and that is being done on the eve
of the visit the President Ramaposa is going to make
to the White house. Do you recognize that as a
conflict of interest?
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Now, of course not.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
First of all, you should be questioning why is there
why the racist laws in South Africa. That's the first
pt problem. That's what you should be attacking. It's improper
for they be racist laws in South Africa. The whole
idea with what Nelson Madelo, who is a great man, proposed,
was that or races should be on an equal footing
in South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not
to replace one set of racist laws with another set
(26:00):
of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper. So
the that's that's the deal, that all races.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Should be tweat equally and there should be no preference
given to one or the other, whereas there are now
one hundred and forty laws in South Africa that give
a pre that basically give strong preference to to if
you if you're black South African and not otherwise. And
so now I'm in the subsurd situation where I was
born in South Africa but cannot get a license to
(26:29):
operates in starlink because I'm not black.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Well, it looks like that's about It looks looks like that, right,
looks like that's about to change.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
I just asked you a question, Please answer. Does that
seem right to you?
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Well, those rules were designed to bring Those rules were
designed to bring about an era of more economic equality
in South Africa, and it looks like the government has
found a way around those rules for you.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Ask your question.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
This is this is your ento. Everyone wants to hear
from you.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
As your question yes or no, not.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
For me to answer. I have got a question for
you about about your government works and the amount of savings.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Why do you like raceless lots?
Speaker 1 (27:14):
This is not for me to answer. Come on, now,
you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
You have to answer question. Answer now, you answer mine.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
I say, I think if you I'm sure you can
have that conversation directly with the South African government if
you want to. I want to ask you about the
total believe it, that's not good. I want to ask
you about the total around. I want to ask you
about the total amount that you're planning to save through
Doge's work. Before the election, you said it was going
to be at least two trillion. The number currently on
(27:45):
doze dog gov is one hundred and seventy billion dollars.
That's a big change. What happened to the two trillion?
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Or do you expect it to happen immediately?
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Well? Is it going to happen because dose is supposed
to run till next July.
Speaker 4 (28:01):
I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise.
Are you assuming that on day you know, within a
few months this an instant two trillion saved?
Speaker 1 (28:10):
No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you, is that
still your aim?
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Then? Is it still your aim to get the amount
of time? Have we not made good progress given the
amount of time?
Speaker 1 (28:19):
That's exactly what I'm asking. So, is it's still your
aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
two trillion?
Speaker 3 (28:28):
The ability of those to operate is this function of
whether the government.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
And this includes the Congress, is willing to take our advice.
We're not the dictators of the government. We are the advisors,
and so we can advise. And the progress who made
thus far I think is incredible. Those team has done
incredible work. But the magnitude of.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
The savings is proportionate to the support we get from
Congress and from the yeah executive branch of the government.
In general. So we're not the dictators. We are the advisors.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
But thus far, for advisors with the DOGE team, to
their credit, has made incredible progress.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
You've talked about four billion dollars a day being saved,
but that that won't get which is an and I
think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in
government is a very good thing. But if you add
that up, it's not going to get to two trillion
over the lifetime of DOGE.
Speaker 3 (29:39):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
The four billion, the four billion a day, if dose
is going to run till next July, is not going
to get you to two trillion dollars. But you still
say it's your aim, so we'll take that as read.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
There's there's, there's there's what DOGE I mean? I feel
you are somewhat trapped.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
In the NPC dialogue tree of a traditional journalist. So
it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who's trapped in
the dialog of a conventional journalist because it's like talking
to a computer.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
So doges an advisory.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Group, we are doing the best we can as an
advisory group. The progress made thus far as an advisory
group is excellent. I don't think any advisory group has
done better in the history of advisory groups of the government. Now,
we do not make the laws, nor do we control
the judiciary, nor do we control the executive branch. We
(30:42):
are simply advisors. In that context, we are doing very well.
Beyond that, we cannot we cannot take action beyond that
because we are not some sort of imperial dictator of
the government.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
There are three branches of the government that that art
some degree opposed to that level. Cost savings, no or less.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Let's let's let's not criticize whether there's a four trillion
and instead look at the fact that that out sixty
billion has been saved and more will we saved two And.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
As I said, I think everyone can agree that cutting
waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible
with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So yes,
I can see, I can see that you're proud of
that work.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
After the break, Michelle asks Elon Musk about US AID
funding cuts, whether he's in communication with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and the steepest challenges facing the multi hyphenit CEO.
You're listening to Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at
(31:53):
the Cutter Economic Forum.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
I do want to ask you about USAID and the
comments that Bill Gates made the other day, which and
I know that you called him. I know you've said
that already.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
I wanted.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
And I'm just who does Bill Gates think he is
to make comments about the welfare of children, given that
he is before quented Jeffrey.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
Fstein, Okay, well.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
He's he's he said he regrets those and he's spent.
He spent. He spent a lot. He spent a lot
of his own money on on philanthropy around the world
over the years. My question to you is have you
looked at the data to check if he might be
right that the cuts to U S A I D
might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Yes, I'd like him to shore us any any evidence
whatsoever that that is true.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
It's false.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
The what we're found with US A D cuts and
by the way, they have an open cut. The parts
of the U S A D that were found to
be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the stage department.
So they've not been deleted, they've soerly been transferred to
the stage department. But many many times over with USA
D and other organizations. When we've when they said, oh,
well this is going to help you know, children, or
(33:15):
it's going to help some UH disease eradication or something
like that. And then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever,
I say, well, please connect us with this group of
children so we can talk to them and understand more
about their issue.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
We get nothing. We don't they don't even try to
prevent show. We should come up with a with a
show orphan meaning like it's sort of like, well, can
we at least see a few kids, like where are
they if they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to
them and talk to their caregivers. And then we get
a thing as a.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
Response because it's what we find is an enormous amount
of fraud and graft.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Okay, I put this example.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Very little actually gets to the kids, if anything at all.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Okay, let me put this example to you because you
grew up in South Africa, so you will know the
impact of HIV AIDS well. And this is why I
asked about the data the US led on international efforts
to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention. And there's an initiative
called pepfile, which is credited with saving twenty six million
lives in the last twenty years. It was part of
(34:23):
the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver.
Its services are disrupted, and unaid says if permanly discontinued,
there will be another four million AIDS related deaths by
twenty twenty nine. So if you look at that example,
which is backed up by data. In twenty twenty three,
(34:43):
six hundred and thirty thousand people died of AIDS related illnesses,
then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of
lives could be lost.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
First of all, the program, the AIDS Medication program, is continuing,
so your fun moree premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now,
do you have another example, not in.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Its entire not in its entirety the program there's a
limited waiver, and UNAIDS have said that not all of
the services that were previously funded by USA IDEA continuing.
So that's that's why, that's why I put that example
to you.
Speaker 3 (35:26):
Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded? I'll fix it.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
Right now for okay. Well, actually they're all on the
un unaid's website, so you'll be able to see them,
but mostly they are to deal with Mostly they are
to do with prevention, and for example, the rollout of
a drug called Lennard kappavir, which was hailed as one
of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years, which
came out last year. So if you are perhaps, I'm
(35:51):
sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to look
at that again.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Yes, well, if in fact this is true, which I
doubt it is, then we'll fix it.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Okay, fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered
whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
spend on the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent a
lot more money on the last US election than you
(36:20):
envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago. Are
you going to continue to spend at that kind of
level on future elections?
Speaker 3 (36:30):
I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to
do a lot less in the future.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
And why is that?
Speaker 3 (36:42):
I think I've done enough?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Well? If I see a reason to do political spending
in the future, I will do it. An I currently serieson.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
What about political influence beyond the US? How often do
you speak to President Putin.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
I was on a video caller with him once about
five years ago. That's the only that's the speaks President Putin.
Oh you must I get it.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Actually, i've heard you. I've heard you speak about it.
For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh,
I challenged President Putin to to was it an arm wrestle?
And I know the Wall Street Journalist reported your reported conversations.
If you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once,
I'll take that as read.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Is there a worse publication on the face of the
earth than the Wall Street Journal I wouldn't use that
to lign up my cage for paragraphics that that that
newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's
and you know, if there's one newspaper that should be
pro capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name.
(37:59):
But it isn't.
Speaker 4 (38:01):
So I have the very lowest opinion of the Wall
Street Journal. Absolute answers.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
And you clearly have believed the tripe that you've written,
that you've read in those papers.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
I read, I read very widely, and I'm putting these
questions to you so that you have an opportunity to
respond to them, which you are and for which we're
all grateful to hear. Your response is, okay, we are.
We are out of time.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
So you mentioned challenging. I did so on the X platform.
I challenged Vladimir Putin to single over the I didn't
talk to him.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
That was a post on the X platform.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
That's why. That's why I asked you, and you've and
you've clarified and explained, thank you. That's that's why I
was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and
you've said you have a dot of videos.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Okay, legacy media lize.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
Okay, listen. I actually thought I might give Grock the
last word, because when I asked Rock what your hardest
challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high
stake ventures and made financial, regulatory and public relations crises.
And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether
(39:11):
you do think that this is a pivotal year in
your life.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's
no different.
Speaker 4 (39:24):
So I mean, in terms of interesting things that probably
our accomplish this year the getting Starship to be fully reusable,
so that we catch both the booster and the ship,
which will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever
in history, which will be a profound breakthrough as the
(39:47):
essential breakthrough necessarily to make life multiplanetary and ultimately become
a space faring civilization. We've got neural link which is
now helped by patients restore capability using the te lefty
implant where they're able to control the computer simply by thinking.
(40:08):
We'll be doing our first patient to restore bland, just
to restore restore site with our blind site implant, which
is the the end of this year early next. In fact,
that that first patient might be in the U a E.
Since we have a relationship with you AE and the
Cleveland clinic clinic there.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
The I think what's.
Speaker 4 (40:31):
Running on the AI front, we are close to what
you might call a g I or or digital superintelligence,
and I think we'll see we are seeing an explosion
in digital super intelligence here. And then we've got at Tesla,
the what we'll be launching ancuvised autonomy basically self driving
(40:52):
cars with no one.
Speaker 3 (40:52):
In them in Austin next month. So It's a big
year for sure.
Speaker 4 (40:59):
Many other things on the in the works too.
Speaker 3 (41:03):
I'm technologists first and foremost Elon Musk.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Thank you very much for joining us here at Cutter
Economic Forum. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gera.
This conversation was part of the Bloomberg Weekend Interview, where
host Michelle Hussain will talk to influential voices in politics,
business and culture from around the globe. You'll be able
to find Michelle's new Weekend interview series at Bloomberg dot com,
slash Weekend, or in the Bloomberg Gap. The Government of
(41:35):
the State of Cutter is the underwriter of the Cutter
Economic Forum, powered by Bloomberg Special thanks to Jessica bec
and Timothy Green. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'm David Gera and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Today.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
On the show, we're bringing you a special conversation in full.
Elon Musk spoke with Mishaal Hussein, editor at Large for
Bloomberg Weekend at the Cutter Economic Forum. Musk joined remote
Lea from Austin, wearing his signature dark jacket with a
fur collar. The interview covered a lot of ground, from
the billionaire's future at Tesla to his ongoing feud with
(00:33):
open Ai CEO Sam Altman and the possibility of Starlink
going public. At times, the conversation grew heated, particularly when
Michall asked about Starlink operating in South Africa, Musk's country
of birth, and about reports of his communication with Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Hello everyone and Elon Musk, Welcome to cut Their Economic Forum.
How are you?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Thank you for having me. I'm fine, How are you?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Very well? Thank you and very pleased to have you
with us. You know, among those here in the audience
in Doha are some you will know people who have
backed to you financially over the years since you last
spoke here in twenty twenty two, A lot has changed
in your life. You're not only running multiple companies. You
were doing that then, but now you also have a
role in government. So, first of all, I hope you
(01:20):
don't mind it. From time to time I have to
move you from one topic to another because we have
a lot to cover in the time we have. That
will be all right, Okay, Well, let's start then with
exactly the fact that you now have this combination of
being a CEO and having a role as a government advisor.
Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's
(01:40):
the split of your time?
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon
Valley yesterday morning. I was in Lasa evening, I mean
Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll be
there having dinner with Presidence tomorrow night, I believe, and
then a much of cabinet secrety meetings and then back
(02:06):
to Sloton Valley on Thursday night.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
But I mean, the balance of your time is it? Well,
clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case
as you said a while ago, that it's about one
to two days a week on your government work. Yeah,
that's correct, And what does that mean for your corporate life?
Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered
(02:30):
in recent months what you've called blowback. So what is
your plan for turning that around? The declining sales picture?
And by what stage do you think you're going to
be able to turn it around?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Oh, it's already to turn around.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking
at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show
very significant declines in the big markets.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Europe is our weakest market.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
We're stronger everywhere else, so our sales are doing doing
well at this point.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
We don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
And the you know, the obviously the stock market recognizes
that since we're now back over a trillion dollars in
market cap, so really the market is aware of the situation.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
So it's it's already turned around.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
But sales still down compared to this time last year.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
In Europe.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
In Europe, okay, and.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
Yes, but that's that's true of all manufacturers, there's no exceptions.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Does that mean you're it's quite weak?
Speaker 1 (03:45):
Okay, but you would acknowledge. Woudn't you that what you
are facing. Okay, let's just take it as Europe what
you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla is
an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it. It saw it,
They saw it it being at the forefront of the climate.
And now people are driving around with stickers in their
cars saying I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
And there are also people who are by buying it
because Elon's crazy, or however they may view it. So, yes,
we've lost some sales, perhaps on the left, but we've
gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this
point are strong and we've seen no problem with them
had so what I mean? You can just look at
(04:27):
the stock price if you want the best inside information.
The stock market analysts have that, and our stock wouldn't
be trading near all time ice if it was not.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
If things weren't in good shape. They're fine, don't worry
about it.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Okay, I was citing sales figures rather than share price. Well,
tell me then, how committed you are to Tesla. Do
you see yourself and now you committed to still being
the chief executive of Tesla in five years time. Yes,
no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well, no, I might die.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Okay, sure to that.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Let me see you if I'm dead. So the slighter mode.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't
have any bearing on your decision?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Well, that's not really subject discussion in this forum. The
I think, obviously there should be a conversation for if
there's something incredible is done, that compensation should match.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
That something incredible was done.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
But I'm confident that whatever the whatever some activists posing
as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not
affect the future compensation.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty
six billion a pay package that was that was awarded
to you. I think the value on the basis on
the current value of stock options.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Yeah, not a judge, not a judge.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
The activist who is cars playing a judge in a
Halloween costume.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Okay, that's your characterization. I think the value on the
current value of stock options.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
I think the actual justice according to the law, on the.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Current value of stock options. I think the value of
that pay package stands at about one hundred billion dollars.
Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of
your future pay package. Your decision to be committed to
Tesla for the next five years as long as you
are still with us on this planet is completely independent
of pay. No, it's not independent, So pay is a
(06:49):
relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted
by activists investors is what matter to me. And I've
said this publicly many times, but let's not have this
whole thing be a discussion of my list pay.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
It's not a money thing. It's a reasonable.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Control thing over the future of the company, especially for
building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. I can't be
sitting there and weren't going.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
To get tossed out by for political reasons by activists.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
That will be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now, let's
move on.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Okay, Well, just one question, well one question before we
move on to other companies, which is that I wonder
if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in
the last few months, did you take it personally?
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (07:44):
And did it make you regret any of you all
think twice about your political endeavors because it is I.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Did what needed to be done, the violent antibody reaction,
and I'm not someone who's ever committed violence, and yet
massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was
threatened against me.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Who are these people? Why would they do that? How
wrong can they be?
Speaker 4 (08:24):
They're on the wrong on the wrong side of history,
and that's an evil thing to do to go and
damage some point intocent person's car, to threaten to kill me.
What's wrong with these people? I have not harmed anyone,
So something needs to be done about them, and a
(08:46):
number of them are going to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla's showrooms,
but I think.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
Well, it's into showrooms and burning down cause unacceptable. Those
people will go to prison, and the people that funded
them and organized them will also go to prison.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Don't worry, wouldn't you wouldn't you wouldn't wouldn't you acknowledge
that some of the people who turned against Tesla in
Europe were were upset at your politics, and very few
of them would have been violent in any way. They
just objected to what they saw you say or do politically.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and
hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay.
You know, that's absurd. That is in no way justifiable
at all in any way, shape or form. And some
(09:55):
of the the legacy media and nonetheless have sort of
justified which is unconscionable. Shame on them.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
After the break, my colleague Michelle Hussein's interview with Elon
Musk continues. He talks about his long standing feud with
Open AI and its CEO Sam Altman, and his track
record on calling for more AI regulation. You're listening to
(10:22):
Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at the Qatar Economic Forum.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Let's talk about your other companies, then another business area, SpaceX.
I saw that you said in a speech at the
West Point Military Academy recently that the future of warfare
is AI and drones, and obviously defense is an increasingly
booming sector with the state of the world at the moment.
(10:47):
Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 4 (10:58):
Yeah, so, as they ask interesting questions that are impossible
to answer, so SpaceX is is.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
The space launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals, so SpaceX has
a very dominant position in space launch. So of the
mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably do,
(11:33):
China will do the remain half of the remaining amounts
of five percent, and the rest of the world, including
the rest of the US, will do about five percent.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
So SpaceX will do about ten times as much as.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
The rest of the world combined, or twenty times as
much as China, which is in China is doing actually
a very impressive job. The reason for this is that
we're putting it into orbit the largest satellite constellation the
world has ever seen by far, so I think at
this point about maybe approaching eighty stable active satellites in
orbit our SpaceX and they're providing high high vand with
(12:05):
global connectivity throughout the world. In fact, this connection is
on a SpaceX connection. So I think this is a
very good thing because it means that we can provide
low cost my bandwidth Internet to parts of the world.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
That don't have it or it's very expensive.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
And I think the single biggest thing you can do
to lift people out of poverty and help them is
giving them an Internet connection, because once you have the
internet connection, you can.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Learn anything for free on the Internet, and you.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
Can also sell your goods and services to the global market.
And once you have knowledge by the Internet and the
ability to engage in commerce, that this is going to
greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
And it has.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience
who may have been helpful, and you know, we're starlink
and getting it to approved in the country, and I
think it's doing a lot of good in the countries
that have approved, which is I think this point one
hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it. I
don't currently into spate space actually getting into the weapons business.
That's certainly that's not an aspiration. We're frequent we're frequently
(13:17):
asked to do to do weapons programs, but we have
dost part a client.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed starlink as a separate
entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
in the future, and what would be.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
The what would be the time frame, what kind of
time frame you consider it.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
I mean no rush, I mean no rush to your public.
The public is I guess a way to you know,
potentially make more money, but at the expense of a
lot of public company overhead and inevitably.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
A whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
So there's really something needs to be done about the
share shareholder shareholder derivative lawsuits in the US because it
allows plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to
pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet
plaintiff for a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit
against the company, and the irony being that extreme irony
(14:29):
that even if the class they purport to represent were
to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit
will still continue.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
So how can it be.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
A class action representing a class if the class were
against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in
the US that needs a dire ney to reform. As
anyone's running a public company, you've experienced this, It's an
absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it. You've
certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this
to him. Is this something you're trying to change before
any starlink.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
IPO, Well, we need a law to be passed.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
The trouble being that Judeen sixty Senate Senate votes and
the Democrats will vote against it. The plaintiffs bar is
I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
That's the that's the issue. At the state level, this
(15:31):
can be solved, and I should say Texas recently passed
a law which at least the state level made a
class action lawsuits much more reasonable because you have to
get at least one in thirty three shareholders to agree
that they are part of a class of shareholders three percent.
This is will be really helped with privileged lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
OK.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Let's talk about AI, which is in so many of
you businesses and in all our worlds in different ways.
It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI.
Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago,
you're in this space of course with GROP which almost
everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
(16:18):
and you've obviously got a legal battle with open ai
and Sam Altman. I wonder if you could say something
about the status of that, because you were together in
Saudi Arabia with the president last week with Sam Altman
in the same place at the same.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Time in the neighborhood.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Okay, So does that mean you are pushing ahead with
the lawsuit against open Ai.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yes. So I came up with the name open ai
as an open source and as a nonprofit, and I
founded ai opening app for the first roughly fifty million dollars,
and it was intended to be a nonprofit, open source company,
and now is they're trying to change that for their
(17:07):
own financial benefit into a for profit company that is
closed source. So this would be like, let's.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
Say you you finded a nonprofit to help preserve the
Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a
lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the word.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I founded.
That's opening Eye.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
They've made some changes to their corporate instructure, though, haven't
they since in recognition of of what you've said.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
And now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Okay, part they have part they have partly walked back
their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made
no difference to how you feel about it. So you
determined to see.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Them in court of course.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Okay, well that's said going to be one to watch.
I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation
because when you were here last talking to John Mickelfwait,
you had some pretty strong words about the risk that
AI poses and you said that you really felt what
the US was missing was a federal AI regulator that
(18:18):
you know, something along lines of the Food and Drug
Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now you're clearly now
in a zone where you're more you're more on the
cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your
view changed on the need for an AI regulator.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Well that I don't think there should be regulators. You
can think of regulators like referees on the on the
field in sports, there should be some number of referees,
but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you
can't kick the ball without hitting one.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
So in many in most.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown over
time to the point where it's like having more referees
than players on the field. So and This is a
natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
It's very important to apro appreciate this. This has happened
throughout history.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
When you have an extended period of prosperity with no
existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the
for unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that
every year more laws and more regulations are pasted, because
you know, legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going
(19:35):
to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of
more and more laws and regulations of a time until
everything is illegal. And let me give you an example
of a truly absurd situation. Under the Biden administration, SpaceX
was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now,
(19:58):
the problem is, it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itart
in National Traffic and Arms Regulations to hire anyone who
is not a permanent resident of the United States, because
the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology
and return to their home country if they're not a
permanent resident.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
So we're simultaneously.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
In a situation where it's illegal to hire slams used
and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the
Partner of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths
being illegal.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Down if you do, down if you don't.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI,
which you said three years ago was needed, and you
said we need to be proactive on the regulation of
AI rather than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that?
Speaker 3 (20:47):
No, of course not. What No, of course not. What
I'm saying is that there should be some referees on
the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have a
field jam packed with referees such so you could not
kick a ball in any direction without hitting one. So
the the fields that have been around for a long time,
such as automotive, so aerospace, you know if the sort
(21:13):
of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new
fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated. In fact, there is
no regulator at all.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
So they should be. Do you still think that.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Yes, I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic
common sense that you that you want to have at
least you want to have a few referees in the field.
You don't want to have an army of referees. But
you want to have a few referees on any given field,
in any given sport, or even any given arena, industrial arena,
to ensure help that public safety is taken care of.
(21:50):
But you don't have so there's an't, there's an't, there's
a proper number of referees. Like I said, it's actually
very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If
the whole field is packed with referees, that would look absurd.
But if there were no referees at all, your game
is not going to be as good.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your
role advising government. You are in this unique and unprecedented
position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with
the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX, and also now
an insider's knowledge of it because of dose. Can you
(22:29):
see that there is a conflict of interest or a
potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through that
very fact?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Actually, there have been many advisors throughout history and the
US government and others who have had economic interests, and
I absolutely an advisor. I don't have a formal power,
and that's a president can choose.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
To accept my advice or not. And that's that's how
it goes.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
If there's a single contract that of my companies that
have received that people think is somehow not was awarded improperly,
it would immediately be front page news, to say the least.
And if I hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would.
So if you're not seeing that, then the clill is
(23:22):
not a complex to interest.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
The Yeah, there's another way though to look at it.
That For example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies
like Boeing or companies would like to do more of
the kind of work you do for NASA Blue Origin
Rocket Lab. And because DOGE is in every federal government department,
you or people who work for DOGE and you are
(23:48):
the driving force behind it, have an insight into those companies'
affairs and those companies' relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Now, all we do as we review the organization to
see if the organization has.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Departments that are no longer relevant and and then are
the contracts that that are being awarded good value for money?
In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. Is
there any value money in a contract? And if there's
if there isn't, then we make recommendations to the secretary.
The Secretary can choose to take those actions or not
(24:28):
take those actions, and that's it. And then any action
that that that is as a function of DOGE is
posted to the DOGE website and to the DOGE dog
Govt at DOGE handle on the x platform. So it's
it's complete transparency. And I have not seen any case
where the best min not has even been an accusation
(24:50):
of conflict because it is.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
It is completely and utterly transparent. That's it.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
And what about the international dimension, Now, let's think about style.
Stalink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's
sought after all over the world. It's critical to the
frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming
its way, and there is some evidence that companies are
allowing access to it because they want to be close
(25:17):
to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So
Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is
working around their rules on black ownership in order to
allow starlinkin and that is being done on the eve
of the visit the President Ramaposa is going to make
to the White house. Do you recognize that as a
conflict of interest?
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Now, of course not.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
First of all, you should be questioning why is there
why the racist laws in South Africa. That's the first
pt problem. That's what you should be attacking. It's improper
for they be racist laws in South Africa. The whole
idea with what Nelson Madelo, who is a great man, proposed,
was that or races should be on an equal footing
in South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not
to replace one set of racist laws with another set
(26:00):
of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper. So
the that's that's the deal, that all races.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Should be tweat equally and there should be no preference
given to one or the other, whereas there are now
one hundred and forty laws in South Africa that give
a pre that basically give strong preference to to if
you if you're black South African and not otherwise. And
so now I'm in the subsurd situation where I was
born in South Africa but cannot get a license to
(26:29):
operates in starlink because I'm not black.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Well, it looks like that's about It looks looks like that, right,
looks like that's about to change.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
I just asked you a question, Please answer. Does that
seem right to you?
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Well, those rules were designed to bring Those rules were
designed to bring about an era of more economic equality
in South Africa, and it looks like the government has
found a way around those rules for you.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Ask your question.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
This is this is your ento. Everyone wants to hear
from you.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
As your question yes or no, not.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
For me to answer. I have got a question for
you about about your government works and the amount of savings.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Why do you like raceless lots?
Speaker 1 (27:14):
This is not for me to answer. Come on, now,
you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
You have to answer question. Answer now, you answer mine.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
I say, I think if you I'm sure you can
have that conversation directly with the South African government if
you want to. I want to ask you about the
total believe it, that's not good. I want to ask
you about the total around. I want to ask you
about the total amount that you're planning to save through
Doge's work. Before the election, you said it was going
to be at least two trillion. The number currently on
(27:45):
doze dog gov is one hundred and seventy billion dollars.
That's a big change. What happened to the two trillion?
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Or do you expect it to happen immediately?
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Well? Is it going to happen because dose is supposed
to run till next July.
Speaker 4 (28:01):
I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise.
Are you assuming that on day you know, within a
few months this an instant two trillion saved?
Speaker 1 (28:10):
No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you, is that
still your aim?
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Then? Is it still your aim to get the amount
of time? Have we not made good progress given the
amount of time?
Speaker 1 (28:19):
That's exactly what I'm asking. So, is it's still your
aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
two trillion?
Speaker 3 (28:28):
The ability of those to operate is this function of
whether the government.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
And this includes the Congress, is willing to take our advice.
We're not the dictators of the government. We are the advisors,
and so we can advise. And the progress who made
thus far I think is incredible. Those team has done
incredible work. But the magnitude of.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
The savings is proportionate to the support we get from
Congress and from the yeah executive branch of the government.
In general. So we're not the dictators. We are the advisors.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
But thus far, for advisors with the DOGE team, to
their credit, has made incredible progress.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
You've talked about four billion dollars a day being saved,
but that that won't get which is an and I
think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in
government is a very good thing. But if you add
that up, it's not going to get to two trillion
over the lifetime of DOGE.
Speaker 3 (29:39):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
The four billion, the four billion a day, if dose
is going to run till next July, is not going
to get you to two trillion dollars. But you still
say it's your aim, so we'll take that as read.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
There's there's, there's there's what DOGE I mean? I feel
you are somewhat trapped.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
In the NPC dialogue tree of a traditional journalist. So
it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who's trapped in
the dialog of a conventional journalist because it's like talking
to a computer.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
So doges an advisory.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Group, we are doing the best we can as an
advisory group. The progress made thus far as an advisory
group is excellent. I don't think any advisory group has
done better in the history of advisory groups of the government. Now,
we do not make the laws, nor do we control
the judiciary, nor do we control the executive branch. We
(30:42):
are simply advisors. In that context, we are doing very well.
Beyond that, we cannot we cannot take action beyond that
because we are not some sort of imperial dictator of
the government.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
There are three branches of the government that that art
some degree opposed to that level. Cost savings, no or less.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Let's let's let's not criticize whether there's a four trillion
and instead look at the fact that that out sixty
billion has been saved and more will we saved two And.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
As I said, I think everyone can agree that cutting
waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible
with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So yes,
I can see, I can see that you're proud of
that work.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
After the break, Michelle asks Elon Musk about US AID
funding cuts, whether he's in communication with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and the steepest challenges facing the multi hyphenit CEO.
You're listening to Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at
(31:53):
the Cutter Economic Forum.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
I do want to ask you about USAID and the
comments that Bill Gates made the other day, which and
I know that you called him. I know you've said
that already.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
I wanted.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
And I'm just who does Bill Gates think he is
to make comments about the welfare of children, given that
he is before quented Jeffrey.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
Fstein, Okay, well.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
He's he's he said he regrets those and he's spent.
He spent. He spent a lot. He spent a lot
of his own money on on philanthropy around the world
over the years. My question to you is have you
looked at the data to check if he might be
right that the cuts to U S A I D
might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Yes, I'd like him to shore us any any evidence
whatsoever that that is true.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
It's false.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
The what we're found with US A D cuts and
by the way, they have an open cut. The parts
of the U S A D that were found to
be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the stage department.
So they've not been deleted, they've soerly been transferred to
the stage department. But many many times over with USA
D and other organizations. When we've when they said, oh,
well this is going to help you know, children, or
(33:15):
it's going to help some UH disease eradication or something
like that. And then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever,
I say, well, please connect us with this group of
children so we can talk to them and understand more
about their issue.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
We get nothing. We don't they don't even try to
prevent show. We should come up with a with a
show orphan meaning like it's sort of like, well, can
we at least see a few kids, like where are
they if they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to
them and talk to their caregivers. And then we get
a thing as a.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
Response because it's what we find is an enormous amount
of fraud and graft.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Okay, I put this example.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Very little actually gets to the kids, if anything at all.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Okay, let me put this example to you because you
grew up in South Africa, so you will know the
impact of HIV AIDS well. And this is why I
asked about the data the US led on international efforts
to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention. And there's an initiative
called pepfile, which is credited with saving twenty six million
lives in the last twenty years. It was part of
(34:23):
the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver.
Its services are disrupted, and unaid says if permanly discontinued,
there will be another four million AIDS related deaths by
twenty twenty nine. So if you look at that example,
which is backed up by data. In twenty twenty three,
(34:43):
six hundred and thirty thousand people died of AIDS related illnesses,
then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of
lives could be lost.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
First of all, the program, the AIDS Medication program, is continuing,
so your fun moree premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now,
do you have another example, not in.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Its entire not in its entirety the program there's a
limited waiver, and UNAIDS have said that not all of
the services that were previously funded by USA IDEA continuing.
So that's that's why, that's why I put that example
to you.
Speaker 3 (35:26):
Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded? I'll fix it.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
Right now for okay. Well, actually they're all on the
un unaid's website, so you'll be able to see them,
but mostly they are to deal with Mostly they are
to do with prevention, and for example, the rollout of
a drug called Lennard kappavir, which was hailed as one
of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years, which
came out last year. So if you are perhaps, I'm
(35:51):
sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to look
at that again.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Yes, well, if in fact this is true, which I
doubt it is, then we'll fix it.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Okay, fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered
whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
spend on the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent a
lot more money on the last US election than you
(36:20):
envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago. Are
you going to continue to spend at that kind of
level on future elections?
Speaker 3 (36:30):
I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to
do a lot less in the future.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
And why is that?
Speaker 3 (36:42):
I think I've done enough?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Well? If I see a reason to do political spending
in the future, I will do it. An I currently serieson.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
What about political influence beyond the US? How often do
you speak to President Putin.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
I was on a video caller with him once about
five years ago. That's the only that's the speaks President Putin.
Oh you must I get it.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Actually, i've heard you. I've heard you speak about it.
For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh,
I challenged President Putin to to was it an arm wrestle?
And I know the Wall Street Journalist reported your reported conversations.
If you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once,
I'll take that as read.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Is there a worse publication on the face of the
earth than the Wall Street Journal I wouldn't use that
to lign up my cage for paragraphics that that that
newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's
and you know, if there's one newspaper that should be
pro capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name.
(37:59):
But it isn't.
Speaker 4 (38:01):
So I have the very lowest opinion of the Wall
Street Journal. Absolute answers.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
And you clearly have believed the tripe that you've written,
that you've read in those papers.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
I read, I read very widely, and I'm putting these
questions to you so that you have an opportunity to
respond to them, which you are and for which we're
all grateful to hear. Your response is, okay, we are.
We are out of time.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
So you mentioned challenging. I did so on the X platform.
I challenged Vladimir Putin to single over the I didn't
talk to him.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
That was a post on the X platform.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
That's why. That's why I asked you, and you've and
you've clarified and explained, thank you. That's that's why I
was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and
you've said you have a dot of videos.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Okay, legacy media lize.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
Okay, listen. I actually thought I might give Grock the
last word, because when I asked Rock what your hardest
challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high
stake ventures and made financial, regulatory and public relations crises.
And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether
(39:11):
you do think that this is a pivotal year in
your life.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's
no different.
Speaker 4 (39:24):
So I mean, in terms of interesting things that probably
our accomplish this year the getting Starship to be fully reusable,
so that we catch both the booster and the ship,
which will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever
in history, which will be a profound breakthrough as the
(39:47):
essential breakthrough necessarily to make life multiplanetary and ultimately become
a space faring civilization. We've got neural link which is
now helped by patients restore capability using the te lefty
implant where they're able to control the computer simply by thinking.
(40:08):
We'll be doing our first patient to restore bland, just
to restore restore site with our blind site implant, which
is the the end of this year early next. In fact,
that that first patient might be in the U a E.
Since we have a relationship with you AE and the
Cleveland clinic clinic there.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
The I think what's.
Speaker 4 (40:31):
Running on the AI front, we are close to what
you might call a g I or or digital superintelligence,
and I think we'll see we are seeing an explosion
in digital super intelligence here. And then we've got at Tesla,
the what we'll be launching ancuvised autonomy basically self driving
(40:52):
cars with no one.
Speaker 3 (40:52):
In them in Austin next month. So It's a big
year for sure.
Speaker 4 (40:59):
Many other things on the in the works too.
Speaker 3 (41:03):
I'm technologists first and foremost Elon Musk.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Thank you very much for joining us here at Cutter
Economic Forum. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gera.
This conversation was part of the Bloomberg Weekend Interview, where
host Michelle Hussain will talk to influential voices in politics,
business and culture from around the globe. You'll be able
to find Michelle's new Weekend interview series at Bloomberg dot com,
slash Weekend, or in the Bloomberg Gap. The Government of
(41:35):
the State of Cutter is the underwriter of the Cutter
Economic Forum, powered by Bloomberg Special thanks to Jessica bec
and Timothy Green. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.
Hosts And Creators
Sarah Holder
Saleha Mohsin
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!