May 20, 2025 • 40 mins
Elon Musk was just interviewed by Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain at the Qatar Economic Forum. It was a sometimes tense exchange that covered everything from DOGE savings, via Tesla protestors, to Elon’s plans to wind down his political contributions. Today’s episode of Elon, Inc. will break down the interview and analyze highlights but for now, you can listen to the whole 40 minutes here.
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):
Hey, this is David Popatopple's host of Elon Inc. We
have for you this week our interview in Cutter that
our colleague Michelle Hussein did with Elon himself. Here is
that interview in its entirety right now. And you should
also know that our episode, our Elon in episode this
(00:21):
week is all about me and Max breaking down the
interview and dissecting it the highlights, the low lights, et cetera,
et cetera. Enjoy.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Hello everyone and Elon Musk. Welcome to Cutter Economic Forum.
How are you?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Thank you for having me. I'm fan, how are you?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
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 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 won't
(00:59):
mind it. For 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
(01:19):
the split of your time?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon
Valley yesterday morning, I was in LA yesterday evening. I
mean Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll
be there having dinner with President tomorrow night, I believe,
and then a lot of cabinet secretary meetings and then
(01:45):
back to Sloton Valley on Thursday night.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
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.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because
if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered 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 (02:23):
Oh, it's all ready to turn around.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
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 (02:37):
Europe is our weakest market. We're stronger everywhere else, so
our sales are doing well at this point. We don't
anticipate any any meaningful or sales shortfall, and the you
know the obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're
(02:57):
now back over a trillion dollars in marketcap, so really
the market is aware of the situation.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
So it's already turned around.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
But sales still down compared to this time last year.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
In Europe. In Europe, okay, and yes, but that's that's
true of all manufacturers.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
There's no accessions.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Does that mean you're quite weak?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Okay, but you would acknowledg wouldn'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 as being at the forefront of the
climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers
in their cars saying I bought this before we knew
Elon was crazy, and there.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
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 the mad So what
do I mean? You can just look at the stock
(04:07):
price if you want the best inside information. The stock
market analysts have that, and a stock wouldn't be trading
near all time eyes if it was not. If things
weren't in good shape, They're fine, don't worry about it.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
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 are you committed to still
being the chief executive of Tesla in five years time? Yes,
no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Well no, I might die.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Okay, sure to that.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Let me see if I'm dead. So there's a slighter mode.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't
have any bearing on your decision?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well, that's not really a 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
that something incredible was done. But I'm confident that whatever
(05:26):
the whatever some activists posing as a judge in Delaware
happens to do will not affect the future compensation.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty
six billion dollar pay package that was that was awarded
to you. I think the value on the basis on
the current value of stock options.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Yeah, not a judge, Not a judge.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
The activist who is cars playing a judge in a
Halloween costume.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Okay, that's that's your characterization. I think the value on
the current value of stock options. I think the.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Actual justice according to the law, on.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
The 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
(06:28):
relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted
by activists, investors is what matters 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. It's
not a money thing. It's a reasonable control thing over
the future of the company, especially for building millions, potentially
billions of humanoid robots.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
I can't be sitting.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
There and weren't going to get tossed out by litical
reasons by activists. That will be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now,
let's move on.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
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 (07:21):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (07:23):
And did it make you regret any of you all
think twice about your political endeavors, because it is.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
I 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. Who are these people? Why would they
(07:59):
do that? How wrong can they be? They're on the wrong,
on the wrong side of history, and that's an evil
thing to do, to go and damage some pointocent person's
car to threaten to kill me. What strong are these people?
I have not harmed anyone, So something needs to be
(08:23):
done about them, and a number of them are going
to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms,
but I.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Think, well, let's into showrooms and burning down cars unacceptable.
Those people will go to prison, and the people that
funded them and organized them will also go to prison.
Don't worry, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
You wouldn't you wouldn't. Wouldn't you acknowledge that some of
the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were are
upset at your politics, and very few of them would
have been violent in any way. They just objected to
(09:07):
what they saw you say or do politically.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
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
(09:31):
in any way, shape or form. And some of the
legacy media and nonetheless have sort of justified which is unconscionable.
Shame on them.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Let's talk about your other companies then, in other 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,
(09:59):
do you we see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 3 (10:10):
You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer.
So SpaceX is is the space launch leader. So SpaceX
doesn't do drones. SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals.
(10:31):
So SpaceX has a a very dominant position in space launch.
So of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX
will probably do, 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
(10:52):
about five percent. So SpaceX will do about ten times
as much as 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 Walls I've ever seen by far. So
I think at this point about maybe approaching eighty percent
(11:12):
of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX and they're
providing high vand with 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.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Internet to parts of the world that don't have it
or it's very expensive.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
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 learn anything for free on the Internet,
and you can also sell your goods and services to
the global market. And once you have knowledge by the
(11:55):
Internet and the ability to engage in commerce, that this
is going to greatly improve quality of life for people
throughout the world.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
And it has.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience
who may have been helpful and you know, with Starlink
and getting it to approved in their country, and I
think it's doing a lot of good in the countries
that to have approved it, which is I think this
point one hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it.
I don't currently into space space actually getting into the
weapons business, that's certainly that's not an aspiration.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
We're fre we're frequently asked to.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Do to do weapons programs, but we have done part
a client.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed, starlink is a separate
entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
in the future.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
And what would be the what would be the time frame,
what kind of time frame you consider it?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
I mean right, 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 a whole bunch
of lawsuits which are very annoying. So there's really something
(13:19):
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 that even if the
(13:43):
class they purport to represent were to vote that they
don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit will still continue.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
So how can it be.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
A class action representing a class if the class were
against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in
the US. It needs a diary to perform that. As
anyone's running a public company, you've experienced this. It's an
absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
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 IPO.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Well, we need a law to be passed.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
The trouble being that you need sixty Senate votes and
the Democrats will vote against it. The plaintiff's bar is
I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
That's the issue. At the state level, this can be solved,
(14:44):
and I should say Texas recently passed a law which
at least the state level made is 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 sharehold This will be really helped with frivolous lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Okay, let's talk about AI, which is in so many
of your 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
(15:27):
everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
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 (15:47):
Time, in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
So does that mean you are pushing ahead with the
lawsuit against open ai.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Yes. So look, I came up with the name open
ai as an open source and as a nonprofit, and
I funded AI opening I 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
(16:19):
that for their own financial benefit into a for profit
company that.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Is closed source. So this would be like, let's.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Say you you funded 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 wood.
You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I funded.
That's opening.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
They've made some changes to their call for instructure, though,
haven't they since in recognition of of what you've said?
Speaker 3 (16:49):
And now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
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 them in court.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Okay, Well, that's that's certainly 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 Micklethwaite,
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
(17:31):
you know, something along the 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 3 (17:48):
Well, something I don't think there should be regulators. You
think of regulators like referees on the on the field
in sport, there should be some number of referees, but
that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can
the ball without hitting one. So in many, in most
perhaps fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown
(18:10):
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. It's
very important to appreciate this. This has happened throughout history.
When you have an extended period of prosperity with no
existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the
(18:35):
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
to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of
more and more laws and regulations of a time until
(18:55):
everything is illegal. And let me give you an example
of truly absurd situation. Under the Biden administration, SpaceX was
sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now.
The problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itart
in National Traffic and Arms regulations to hire anyone who
(19:18):
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 4 (19:27):
So we're simultaneously.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
In a situation where it's illegal to hire slums US
and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the
Biden's Departner of Justice chose to prosecute US despite both
paths being illegal.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Down if you do, down if you don't.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
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 4 (20:00):
No, of course not. What what?
Speaker 3 (20:02):
No? Of course not. What I'm saying is that there
should be some referees on the field, a few referees,
but you.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Shouldn't have a field jam packed.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
With referees that such that you could not kick a
ball in any direction without hitting one. So the the
the fields that have been around for a long time,
such as automotive, so aerospace you know, if the sort
of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new
fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
In fact, there is no regulator at.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
All, so they should be.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
Do you still think that, Yes, I'm simply saying, which
I think is just basic common sense, that you want
to have at least you want 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
(20:59):
that like safety is taken care of. But your already
have so there's a there's 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
(21:20):
be as good.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your
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 dog. Can
(21:42):
you see that there is a conflict of interest or
a potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through
that very fact.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
I don't think so. Actually, there have been many advisors
throughout history and the US government and others who have
had economic interests, and I am silverely an advisor. I
don't have a formal power, and that's a president can
choose to accept my advice or not, and that's that's
(22:13):
how it goes. If there's a single contract that any
of my companies have received that people think is somehow
not was was awarded improperly, it would immediately be front
page news, to say the least. And if if I
hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would. So if you're
not seeing that, then the clearly is not a complex
(22:36):
to interest.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
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 wh would like to do more
of the kind of work you do for NASA Blue
Origin Rocket Lab. And because those is in every federal
government department, you or people who work for and you
(23:01):
are the driving force behind it, have an insight into
those companies' affairs and those companies relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
Now, all we do is we review the organization to
see if the organization has departments that are no longer
relevant and and and then are the contracts that are
being awarded good value for money? In fact, frankly, the
bar is not particularly high. Is there any value for
money in a contract? And if there's if there isn't,
(23:34):
then we make recommendations to the secretary. The secretary you
can choose to take those actions or not 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 govort at DOGE
handle on the x platform. So it's it's complete tran transparency.
(23:56):
And I have not seen any case where so that's
my large It's even been an accusation of conflict because
it is as completely and utterly transparent. That's it.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
And what about the international dimension. Now, let's think about Starlink.
Starlink 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
(24:30):
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 (24:50):
Now, of course not. First of all, you should be
questioning why is there why are the racist laws in
South Africa. That's the first plot problem. That's what you
should be attacking. It's improper for the race, the laws
in South Africa. The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela,
who is a great man, proposed, was that all races
should be on an equal footing in South Africa. That's
the right thing to do, not to replace one set
(25:11):
of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which
is utterly wrong and improper. So that's that's the deal,
that all races 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 that basically give strong preference to to
(25:34):
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 operate in starlink because I'm not black.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Well, it looks like it looks looks like that, right,
it looks like that's about to change.
Speaker 3 (25:51):
I just asked you a question. Please answer. Does that
seem right to you?
Speaker 2 (25:54):
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 (26:09):
Ask your question.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear
from you.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
Yes or no, not.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
For me to answer. I have got a question for
you about about your government works and the amount of savings.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
Do you like raceless loves?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
This is not for me to answer. Come on, now,
you wouldn't be trying to dodge.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
A question to answer question?
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Answer you answer?
Speaker 2 (26:36):
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 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.
(26:56):
The number currently on doze dot gov is one hundred
and seventy billion dollars. That's a big change. What happened
to the two.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Trillion or do you expect it to happen immediately?
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Well? Is it going to happen because those is supposed
to run till next July.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise.
Are you assuming that on day you know, within a
few months this instant two trillion saved?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you is that
still your aim?
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Then?
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Is it still your aim to get.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Amount of time?
Speaker 3 (27:28):
Have we not made good progress given the amount of time?
Speaker 2 (27:32):
That's exactly what I'm asking, So is it still your
aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
two trillion?
Speaker 3 (27:40):
The ability of those to operate is this function of
whether the government and this include 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 think is incredible. Those
(28:01):
team has done incredible work, but the magnitude of the
savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress
and from the executive branch of the government in general.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
So we're not the dictators.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
We are the advisors. But thus far, for advisors with
the Doorge team, to their credit, has made incredible progress.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
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 dog.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
The four billion, the four billion a day, if dose
is going to run till next July, is not going
to get you to trilli and dollars. But you still
say it's your aim, so we'll take that as read.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
There's there's, there's there's what doge I mean? I fail
You're somewhat trapped in the NPC dialogue tree of a
traditional journalist. So it's difficult when when I'm conversing with
someone who's trapped in the valor te of a conventional journalist,
because it's like talking to a computer. So, uh, DOGE
(29:30):
is an advisory 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 were We do not
make the laws, nor do we control the judiciary, nor
(29:52):
do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors
in that context, we're doing very well. Beyond that, we
can not we can't take action beyond that because we
are not some sort of imperial dictator of the government.
There are three branches of government that that art some
degree opposed to that level of cost savings. Unless let's
(30:16):
let's let's not criticize whether there's four trillion. Instead look
at the fact that our sixty billion has been saved
and more we save two.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
And as I said, I think everyone can agree that
cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being
responsible with taxpayer money is a very good thing. So yes,
I can see, I can see that you're proud of
that work. I do want to ask you about USAID
and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day,
(30:49):
which and I know that you called him. I know
you've said that already.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
I learned it also, And I'm just who does Bill
Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare
of children, given that he is beforequented Jeffreystein.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Okay, well 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
(31:27):
I D might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Yes, I'd like him to proshure us any any evidence
whatsoever that that is true.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
It's false.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
The what we're found with US A D cuts and
by the way, they have an urban cut. The parts
of the U S A D that we found to
be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the State Department.
So they've not been deleted, they've really been transferred to
the State Department, but many many times over with US
A D and other organizations when we've when they said, oh,
well this is going to help you know, children, or
(32:01):
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. We get nothing. We don't they don't
even try to prevent a show. We should come up
(32:22):
with a with a show often 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.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
And then we get something as a.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
Response because it's what we find is an enormous amount
of fraud and graft.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
Okay, let me put this example.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Very little actually gets to the kids, if anything at all.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
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
(33:09):
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,
(33:29):
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 (33:39):
First of all, the program, the AIDS Medication program, is continuing,
so your fun model premise is wrong.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
It is continuing. Now do you have another example, not.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
In its entire not in its 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 why that's why I put that example to you?
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded?
Speaker 2 (34:14):
I'll fix it right now for okay. Well, actually they're
all on the 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 lenna kappavir, which was hailed
as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years,
(34:34):
which came out last year. So if you are perhaps,
I'm sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to
look at that again.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Yes, well, well, if in fact this is true, which
I doubt it is, then we'll fix it.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
Okay, fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered
whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
spend on the the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent
a lot more money on the last US election than
(35:06):
you 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 (35:17):
I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to
do a lot less in the future.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
And why is that?
Speaker 3 (35:28):
I think I've done enough?
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Well, if I see a reason to do political spending
in the future, I will do it.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
I did not currently see reason.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
What about political influence beyond the US, how often do
you speak to President Putin.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
I was on a video caller with him once about
five years AG. That's the only that's the speak president
President Putin. Oh, you must I get it. You believe
the legacy.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
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 uh to was it an
arm wrestle? And I know the Wall Street Journal has
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 (36:25):
Is there a worse publication on the face of the
earth than the Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that
to ligne 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.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
But it isn't. So I have the very lowest opinion
of the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Absolute answers, And you clearly have believed the tripe that
you've written, that you've read in those papers I read.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
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 3 (37:07):
So you mentioned challenging. I did so on on the
X platform. I challenged Vladi Imprutin over the I didn't
talk to him. That was a post on the X platform.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
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 another than a video.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Okay, legacy mediaize.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
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
(37:57):
you do think that this is a pivot or year
in your life.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's
no different. So I mean in terms of interesting things
that hopefully our coverers this year the getting Starship to
be fully reusable so that we catch both the booster
(38:26):
and the ship, which will be the first fully reusable
orbital rocket ever in history, which is would be a
profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make life
multiplanetary and ultimately become a space faring civilization. We've got
neuralink which is now helped five patients restore capability using
(38:49):
the telefty implants where they're able to control the computer
simply by thinking. We'll be doing our first patient to
restore blank true source site with our blind site implant,
which is the end of this year early next. In fact,
that that first patient might be in the U a E.
(39:09):
Since we have a relationship with you and the Cleveland
clinic clinic there. The I think what's 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
(39:31):
intelligence here.
Speaker 4 (39:32):
And then we've got at Tesla, the what we'll.
Speaker 3 (39:35):
Be launching unsupervised autonomy basically self driving cars with no
one in them in Austin next month. So it's it's
a big year for sure. Many other things on the
in the in the works too. I'm a technologist first
and foremost.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here
at CUT the Economic Forum. Thank you M
Hey, this is David Popatopple's host of Elon Inc. We
have for you this week our interview in Cutter that
our colleague Michelle Hussein did with Elon himself. Here is
that interview in its entirety right now. And you should
also know that our episode, our Elon in episode this
(00:21):
week is all about me and Max breaking down the
interview and dissecting it the highlights, the low lights, et cetera,
et cetera. Enjoy.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Hello everyone and Elon Musk. Welcome to Cutter Economic Forum.
How are you?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Thank you for having me. I'm fan, how are you?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
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 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 won't
(00:59):
mind it. For 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
(01:19):
the split of your time?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon
Valley yesterday morning, I was in LA yesterday evening. I
mean Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll
be there having dinner with President tomorrow night, I believe,
and then a lot of cabinet secretary meetings and then
(01:45):
back to Sloton Valley on Thursday night.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
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.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because
if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered 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 (02:23):
Oh, it's all ready to turn around.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
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 (02:37):
Europe is our weakest market. We're stronger everywhere else, so
our sales are doing well at this point. We don't
anticipate any any meaningful or sales shortfall, and the you
know the obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're
(02:57):
now back over a trillion dollars in marketcap, so really
the market is aware of the situation.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
So it's already turned around.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
But sales still down compared to this time last year.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
In Europe. In Europe, okay, and yes, but that's that's
true of all manufacturers.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
There's no accessions.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Does that mean you're quite weak?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Okay, but you would acknowledg wouldn'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 as being at the forefront of the
climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers
in their cars saying I bought this before we knew
Elon was crazy, and there.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
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 the mad So what
do I mean? You can just look at the stock
(04:07):
price if you want the best inside information. The stock
market analysts have that, and a stock wouldn't be trading
near all time eyes if it was not. If things
weren't in good shape, They're fine, don't worry about it.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
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 are you committed to still
being the chief executive of Tesla in five years time? Yes,
no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Well no, I might die.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Okay, sure to that.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Let me see if I'm dead. So there's a slighter mode.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't
have any bearing on your decision?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well, that's not really a 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
that something incredible was done. But I'm confident that whatever
(05:26):
the whatever some activists posing as a judge in Delaware
happens to do will not affect the future compensation.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty
six billion dollar pay package that was that was awarded
to you. I think the value on the basis on
the current value of stock options.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Yeah, not a judge, Not a judge.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
The activist who is cars playing a judge in a
Halloween costume.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Okay, that's that's your characterization. I think the value on
the current value of stock options. I think the.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Actual justice according to the law, on.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
The 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
(06:28):
relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted
by activists, investors is what matters 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. It's
not a money thing. It's a reasonable control thing over
the future of the company, especially for building millions, potentially
billions of humanoid robots.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
I can't be sitting.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
There and weren't going to get tossed out by litical
reasons by activists. That will be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now,
let's move on.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
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 (07:21):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (07:23):
And did it make you regret any of you all
think twice about your political endeavors, because it is.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
I 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. Who are these people? Why would they
(07:59):
do that? How wrong can they be? They're on the wrong,
on the wrong side of history, and that's an evil
thing to do, to go and damage some pointocent person's
car to threaten to kill me. What strong are these people?
I have not harmed anyone, So something needs to be
(08:23):
done about them, and a number of them are going
to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms,
but I.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Think, well, let's into showrooms and burning down cars unacceptable.
Those people will go to prison, and the people that
funded them and organized them will also go to prison.
Don't worry, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
You wouldn't you wouldn't. Wouldn't you acknowledge that some of
the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were are
upset at your politics, and very few of them would
have been violent in any way. They just objected to
(09:07):
what they saw you say or do politically.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
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
(09:31):
in any way, shape or form. And some of the
legacy media and nonetheless have sort of justified which is unconscionable.
Shame on them.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Let's talk about your other companies then, in other 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,
(09:59):
do you we see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 3 (10:10):
You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer.
So SpaceX is is the space launch leader. So SpaceX
doesn't do drones. SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals.
(10:31):
So SpaceX has a a very dominant position in space launch.
So of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX
will probably do, 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
(10:52):
about five percent. So SpaceX will do about ten times
as much as 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 Walls I've ever seen by far. So
I think at this point about maybe approaching eighty percent
(11:12):
of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX and they're
providing high vand with 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.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Internet to parts of the world that don't have it
or it's very expensive.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
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 learn anything for free on the Internet,
and you can also sell your goods and services to
the global market. And once you have knowledge by the
(11:55):
Internet and the ability to engage in commerce, that this
is going to greatly improve quality of life for people
throughout the world.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
And it has.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience
who may have been helpful and you know, with Starlink
and getting it to approved in their country, and I
think it's doing a lot of good in the countries
that to have approved it, which is I think this
point one hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it.
I don't currently into space space actually getting into the
weapons business, that's certainly that's not an aspiration.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
We're fre we're frequently asked to.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Do to do weapons programs, but we have done part
a client.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed, starlink is a separate
entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
in the future.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
And what would be the what would be the time frame,
what kind of time frame you consider it?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
I mean right, 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 a whole bunch
of lawsuits which are very annoying. So there's really something
(13:19):
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 that even if the
(13:43):
class they purport to represent were to vote that they
don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit will still continue.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
So how can it be.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
A class action representing a class if the class were
against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in
the US. It needs a diary to perform that. As
anyone's running a public company, you've experienced this. It's an
absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
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 IPO.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Well, we need a law to be passed.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
The trouble being that you need sixty Senate votes and
the Democrats will vote against it. The plaintiff's bar is
I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
That's the issue. At the state level, this can be solved,
(14:44):
and I should say Texas recently passed a law which
at least the state level made is 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 sharehold This will be really helped with frivolous lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Okay, let's talk about AI, which is in so many
of your 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
(15:27):
everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
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 (15:47):
Time, in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
So does that mean you are pushing ahead with the
lawsuit against open ai.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Yes. So look, I came up with the name open
ai as an open source and as a nonprofit, and
I funded AI opening I 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
(16:19):
that for their own financial benefit into a for profit
company that.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Is closed source. So this would be like, let's.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Say you you funded 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 wood.
You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I funded.
That's opening.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
They've made some changes to their call for instructure, though,
haven't they since in recognition of of what you've said?
Speaker 3 (16:49):
And now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
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 them in court.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Okay, Well, that's that's certainly 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 Micklethwaite,
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
(17:31):
you know, something along the 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 3 (17:48):
Well, something I don't think there should be regulators. You
think of regulators like referees on the on the field
in sport, there should be some number of referees, but
that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can
the ball without hitting one. So in many, in most
perhaps fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown
(18:10):
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. It's
very important to appreciate this. This has happened throughout history.
When you have an extended period of prosperity with no
existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the
(18:35):
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
to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of
more and more laws and regulations of a time until
(18:55):
everything is illegal. And let me give you an example
of truly absurd situation. Under the Biden administration, SpaceX was
sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now.
The problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itart
in National Traffic and Arms regulations to hire anyone who
(19:18):
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 4 (19:27):
So we're simultaneously.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
In a situation where it's illegal to hire slums US
and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the
Biden's Departner of Justice chose to prosecute US despite both
paths being illegal.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Down if you do, down if you don't.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
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 4 (20:00):
No, of course not. What what?
Speaker 3 (20:02):
No? Of course not. What I'm saying is that there
should be some referees on the field, a few referees,
but you.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Shouldn't have a field jam packed.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
With referees that such that you could not kick a
ball in any direction without hitting one. So the the
the fields that have been around for a long time,
such as automotive, so aerospace you know, if the sort
of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new
fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
In fact, there is no regulator at.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
All, so they should be.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
Do you still think that, Yes, I'm simply saying, which
I think is just basic common sense, that you want
to have at least you want 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
(20:59):
that like safety is taken care of. But your already
have so there's a there's 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
(21:20):
be as good.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your
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 dog. Can
(21:42):
you see that there is a conflict of interest or
a potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through
that very fact.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
I don't think so. Actually, there have been many advisors
throughout history and the US government and others who have
had economic interests, and I am silverely an advisor. I
don't have a formal power, and that's a president can
choose to accept my advice or not, and that's that's
(22:13):
how it goes. If there's a single contract that any
of my companies have received that people think is somehow
not was was awarded improperly, it would immediately be front
page news, to say the least. And if if I
hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would. So if you're
not seeing that, then the clearly is not a complex
(22:36):
to interest.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
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 wh would like to do more
of the kind of work you do for NASA Blue
Origin Rocket Lab. And because those is in every federal
government department, you or people who work for and you
(23:01):
are the driving force behind it, have an insight into
those companies' affairs and those companies relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
Now, all we do is we review the organization to
see if the organization has departments that are no longer
relevant and and and then are the contracts that are
being awarded good value for money? In fact, frankly, the
bar is not particularly high. Is there any value for
money in a contract? And if there's if there isn't,
(23:34):
then we make recommendations to the secretary. The secretary you
can choose to take those actions or not 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 govort at DOGE
handle on the x platform. So it's it's complete tran transparency.
(23:56):
And I have not seen any case where so that's
my large It's even been an accusation of conflict because
it is as completely and utterly transparent. That's it.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
And what about the international dimension. Now, let's think about Starlink.
Starlink 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
(24:30):
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 (24:50):
Now, of course not. First of all, you should be
questioning why is there why are the racist laws in
South Africa. That's the first plot problem. That's what you
should be attacking. It's improper for the race, the laws
in South Africa. The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela,
who is a great man, proposed, was that all races
should be on an equal footing in South Africa. That's
the right thing to do, not to replace one set
(25:11):
of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which
is utterly wrong and improper. So that's that's the deal,
that all races 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 that basically give strong preference to to
(25:34):
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 operate in starlink because I'm not black.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Well, it looks like it looks looks like that, right,
it looks like that's about to change.
Speaker 3 (25:51):
I just asked you a question. Please answer. Does that
seem right to you?
Speaker 2 (25:54):
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 (26:09):
Ask your question.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear
from you.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
Yes or no, not.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
For me to answer. I have got a question for
you about about your government works and the amount of savings.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
Do you like raceless loves?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
This is not for me to answer. Come on, now,
you wouldn't be trying to dodge.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
A question to answer question?
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Answer you answer?
Speaker 2 (26:36):
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 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.
(26:56):
The number currently on doze dot gov is one hundred
and seventy billion dollars. That's a big change. What happened
to the two.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Trillion or do you expect it to happen immediately?
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Well? Is it going to happen because those is supposed
to run till next July.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise.
Are you assuming that on day you know, within a
few months this instant two trillion saved?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you is that
still your aim?
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Then?
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Is it still your aim to get.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Amount of time?
Speaker 3 (27:28):
Have we not made good progress given the amount of time?
Speaker 2 (27:32):
That's exactly what I'm asking, So is it still your
aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
two trillion?
Speaker 3 (27:40):
The ability of those to operate is this function of
whether the government and this include 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 think is incredible. Those
(28:01):
team has done incredible work, but the magnitude of the
savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress
and from the executive branch of the government in general.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
So we're not the dictators.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
We are the advisors. But thus far, for advisors with
the Doorge team, to their credit, has made incredible progress.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
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 dog.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
The four billion, the four billion a day, if dose
is going to run till next July, is not going
to get you to trilli and dollars. But you still
say it's your aim, so we'll take that as read.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
There's there's, there's there's what doge I mean? I fail
You're somewhat trapped in the NPC dialogue tree of a
traditional journalist. So it's difficult when when I'm conversing with
someone who's trapped in the valor te of a conventional journalist,
because it's like talking to a computer. So, uh, DOGE
(29:30):
is an advisory 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 were We do not
make the laws, nor do we control the judiciary, nor
(29:52):
do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors
in that context, we're doing very well. Beyond that, we
can not we can't take action beyond that because we
are not some sort of imperial dictator of the government.
There are three branches of government that that art some
degree opposed to that level of cost savings. Unless let's
(30:16):
let's let's not criticize whether there's four trillion. Instead look
at the fact that our sixty billion has been saved
and more we save two.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
And as I said, I think everyone can agree that
cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being
responsible with taxpayer money is a very good thing. So yes,
I can see, I can see that you're proud of
that work. I do want to ask you about USAID
and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day,
(30:49):
which and I know that you called him. I know
you've said that already.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
I learned it also, And I'm just who does Bill
Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare
of children, given that he is beforequented Jeffreystein.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Okay, well 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
(31:27):
I D might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Yes, I'd like him to proshure us any any evidence
whatsoever that that is true.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
It's false.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
The what we're found with US A D cuts and
by the way, they have an urban cut. The parts
of the U S A D that we found to
be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the State Department.
So they've not been deleted, they've really been transferred to
the State Department, but many many times over with US
A D and other organizations when we've when they said, oh,
well this is going to help you know, children, or
(32:01):
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. We get nothing. We don't they don't
even try to prevent a show. We should come up
(32:22):
with a with a show often 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.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
And then we get something as a.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
Response because it's what we find is an enormous amount
of fraud and graft.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
Okay, let me put this example.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Very little actually gets to the kids, if anything at all.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
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
(33:09):
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,
(33:29):
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 (33:39):
First of all, the program, the AIDS Medication program, is continuing,
so your fun model premise is wrong.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
It is continuing. Now do you have another example, not.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
In its entire not in its 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 why that's why I put that example to you?
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded?
Speaker 2 (34:14):
I'll fix it right now for okay. Well, actually they're
all on the 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 lenna kappavir, which was hailed
as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years,
(34:34):
which came out last year. So if you are perhaps,
I'm sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to
look at that again.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Yes, well, well, if in fact this is true, which
I doubt it is, then we'll fix it.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
Okay, fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered
whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
spend on the the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent
a lot more money on the last US election than
(35:06):
you 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 (35:17):
I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to
do a lot less in the future.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
And why is that?
Speaker 3 (35:28):
I think I've done enough?
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Well, if I see a reason to do political spending
in the future, I will do it.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
I did not currently see reason.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
What about political influence beyond the US, how often do
you speak to President Putin.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
I was on a video caller with him once about
five years AG. That's the only that's the speak president
President Putin. Oh, you must I get it. You believe
the legacy.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
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 uh to was it an
arm wrestle? And I know the Wall Street Journal has
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 (36:25):
Is there a worse publication on the face of the
earth than the Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that
to ligne 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.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
But it isn't. So I have the very lowest opinion
of the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Absolute answers, And you clearly have believed the tripe that
you've written, that you've read in those papers I read.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
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 3 (37:07):
So you mentioned challenging. I did so on on the
X platform. I challenged Vladi Imprutin over the I didn't
talk to him. That was a post on the X platform.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
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 another than a video.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Okay, legacy mediaize.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
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
(37:57):
you do think that this is a pivot or year
in your life.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's
no different. So I mean in terms of interesting things
that hopefully our coverers this year the getting Starship to
be fully reusable so that we catch both the booster
(38:26):
and the ship, which will be the first fully reusable
orbital rocket ever in history, which is would be a
profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make life
multiplanetary and ultimately become a space faring civilization. We've got
neuralink which is now helped five patients restore capability using
(38:49):
the telefty implants where they're able to control the computer
simply by thinking. We'll be doing our first patient to
restore blank true source site with our blind site implant,
which is the end of this year early next. In fact,
that that first patient might be in the U a E.
(39:09):
Since we have a relationship with you and the Cleveland
clinic clinic there. The I think what's 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
(39:31):
intelligence here.
Speaker 4 (39:32):
And then we've got at Tesla, the what we'll.
Speaker 3 (39:35):
Be launching unsupervised autonomy basically self driving cars with no
one in them in Austin next month. So it's it's
a big year for sure. Many other things on the
in the in the works too. I'm a technologist first
and foremost.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here
at CUT the Economic Forum. Thank you M
Host
David Papadopoulos
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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.
Good Hang with Amy Poehler
Come hang with Amy Poehler. Each week on her podcast, she'll welcome celebrities and fun people to her studio. They'll share stories about their careers, mutual friends, shared enthusiasms, and most importantly, what's been making them laugh. This podcast is not about trying to make you better or giving advice. Amy just wants to have a good time.