Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news, Elon Musk Welcome to
Speaker 1: cut their Economic Forum. How are you?
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me? I'm mine, How are you?
Speaker 1: Very well? Thank you and very pleased to have you
Speaker 1: with us. You know among those here in the audience
Speaker 1: in Doha are some you will know people who have
Speaker 1: backed to you financially. Over the years since you last
Speaker 1: spoke here in twenty twenty two, a lot has changed
Speaker 1: in your life. You're not only running multiple companies. You
Speaker 1: were doing that then, but now you also have a
Speaker 1: role in government. So, first of all, I hope you
Speaker 1: won't mind it. From time to time I have to
Speaker 1: move you from one topic to another because we have
Speaker 1: a lot to cover in the time we have. That
Speaker 1: will be all right, Okay, Well, let's start then with
Speaker 1: exactly the fact that you now have this combination of
Speaker 1: being a CEO and having a role as a government advisor.
Speaker 1: Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's
Speaker 1: the split of your time?
Speaker 3: Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon
Speaker 3: Valley yesterday morning. I was in LA yesterday evening. I
Speaker 3: mean Austin right now, I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll
Speaker 3: be there having dinner with President tomorrow night, I believe,
Speaker 3: and then a lout of cabinet secrety meetings and then
Speaker 3: back to Slotton Valley on Thursday night.
Speaker 1: But I mean, the balance of your time is it Well,
Speaker 1: clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case
Speaker 1: as you said a while ago, that it's about one
Speaker 1: to two days a week on your government work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 1: And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because
Speaker 1: if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered in
Speaker 1: recent months what you've called blowback. So what is your
Speaker 1: plan for turning that around? The declining sales picture? And
Speaker 1: by what stage do you think you're going to be
Speaker 1: able to turn it around.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's already to turn around.
Speaker 1: Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking
Speaker 1: at the sales figures for Europe in April, would show
Speaker 1: very significant declines in the big markets.
Speaker 3: Europe is our weakest market. We're stronger everywhere else. So
Speaker 3: our sales are doing doing well at this point. We
Speaker 3: don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall and.
Speaker 2: The you know the.
Speaker 3: Obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're now back
Speaker 3: over a trillion dollars in marketcap. So really the market
Speaker 3: is aware of the situation, so it's it's already turned around, but.
Speaker 1: Sales still down compared to this time last year.
Speaker 2: In Europe.
Speaker 1: In Europe, okay, and.
Speaker 3: Yes, but that's that's true of all manufacturers. There's no exceptions.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 2: Does that mean you're quite weak?
Speaker 1: Okay? But you would acknowledge, wouldn't you that what you
Speaker 1: are facing. Okay, let's just take it as your what
Speaker 1: you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla was
Speaker 1: an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it. It saw it,
Speaker 1: they saw it it being at the forefront of the
Speaker 1: climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers
Speaker 1: in their cars saying I bought this before we knew
Speaker 1: Elon was crazy.
Speaker 3: And there are also people who are by buying it
Speaker 3: because Elon's crazy, or however they may view it. So, yes,
Speaker 3: we've lost some sales perths on the left, but we've
Speaker 3: gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this
Speaker 3: point are strong and we've seen no problem with them
Speaker 3: had So what I.
Speaker 2: Mean, you can just look at the stock price if
Speaker 2: you want the best inside.
Speaker 3: Information the stock market analysts have that, and our stock
Speaker 3: wouldn't be trading near all time eyes if it was not,
Speaker 3: if things weren't in good Jay, They're fine, don't worry
Speaker 3: about it.
Speaker 1: Okay, I was citing sales figures rather than share price.
Speaker 1: Well tell me then, how committed you are to Tesla?
Speaker 1: Do you see yourself and are you committed to still
Speaker 1: being the chief executive of Tesla in five years time? Yes,
Speaker 1: no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 2: Well, no, I might die, Okay, sure to that. Let
Speaker 2: me see you if I'm dead. So does that.
Speaker 1: Mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any
Speaker 1: bearing on your decision?
Speaker 3: Well, that's not really serject discussion in this forum. The
Speaker 3: I think, obviously there should be a conversation for if
Speaker 3: there's something incredible is done, that compensation should match.
Speaker 2: That something incredible was done.
Speaker 3: But I'm confident that so whatever the whatever some activist
Speaker 3: posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do will
Speaker 3: not affect the future compensation.
Speaker 1: This is the judge who twice struck down the fifty
Speaker 1: six billion dollar pay package that was awarded to you.
Speaker 1: I think the value on the basis on the current
Speaker 1: value of stock options.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not a judge, not a judge the activist who
Speaker 3: is cars playing a judge in a Halloween costume.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's your characterization. I think the value on the
Speaker 1: current value of stock options.
Speaker 2: I think the actual justice according to the law, on the.
Speaker 1: Current value of stock options. I think the value of
Speaker 1: that pay package stands at about one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of
Speaker 1: your future pay package? Your decision to be committed to
Speaker 1: Tesla for the next five years as long as you
Speaker 1: are still with us on this planet, is completely independent
Speaker 1: of pay. No, it's not independent. So pay is a
Speaker 1: relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Speaker 3: A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted
Speaker 3: by activists investors is what matters to me. And I've
Speaker 3: said this publicly many times, but let's not have this
Speaker 3: whole thing be a discussion of my list pay. It's
Speaker 3: not a money thing. It's a reasonable control thing over
Speaker 3: the future of the company, especially for building millions, potentially
Speaker 3: billions of humanoid robots.
Speaker 2: I can't be sitting.
Speaker 3: There and weren't going to get tossed out by for
Speaker 3: political reasons by activists. That would be unacceptable. That's all
Speaker 3: that matters. Now let's move on.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well just one question, well one question before we
Speaker 1: move on to other companies, which is that I wonder
Speaker 1: if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in
Speaker 1: the last few months, did you take it personally?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: And did it make you regret any of you all
Speaker 1: think twice about your political endeavors, because it is I
Speaker 1: did what needed.
Speaker 3: To be done, Uh, the violent antibody reaction, and I'm
Speaker 3: not someone who's ever committed violence, and yet massive violence
Speaker 3: was committed against my company's massive violence was threatened against me.
Speaker 2: Who are these people? Why would they do that? How
Speaker 2: wrong can they be?
Speaker 3: They're on the wrong, on the wrong side of history,
Speaker 3: and that's an evil thing to do, to go and
Speaker 3: damage some pointocent person's car, to threaten to kill me.
Speaker 3: What's wrong with these people? I have not harmed anyone,
Speaker 3: So something needs to be done about them. And a
Speaker 3: number of them are going to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 1: You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms.
Speaker 3: But I think, well, it's into showrooms and burning down
Speaker 3: cars unacceptable. Those people will go to prison, and the
Speaker 3: people that funded them and organized them will also go
Speaker 3: to prison.
Speaker 1: Don't worry, wouldn't you coming you wouldn't you, hm, wouldn't.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you acknowledge that some of the people who turned
Speaker 1: against Tesla in Europe were were upset at your politics,
Speaker 1: and very few of them would have been violent in
Speaker 1: any way. They just objected to what they saw you
Speaker 1: say or do politically.
Speaker 3: Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
Speaker 3: it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and
Speaker 3: hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay. Uh,
Speaker 3: you know that's sir.
Speaker 2: That is in no way justifiable at all.
Speaker 3: In any way, shape or form, And some of the
Speaker 3: legacy media and nonethless have sort of justified, which is unconscionable.
Speaker 2: Shame on them.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about your other companies then, in other business area, SpaceX.
Speaker 1: I saw that you said in a speech at the
Speaker 1: West Point Military Academy recently that the future of warfare
Speaker 1: is AI and drones, and obviously defense is an increasingly
Speaker 1: booming sector with the state of the world at the moment,
Speaker 1: do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 3: You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer.
Speaker 3: So SpaceX is is the space launch leader.
Speaker 2: So SpaceX doesn't do drones.
Speaker 3: SpaceX world's rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals. So SpaceX has
Speaker 3: a a very dominant position in space launch. So of
Speaker 3: the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably
Speaker 3: do nine.
Speaker 2: China will do the.
Speaker 3: Remain half of the remaining amounts of five percent, and
Speaker 3: the rest of the world, including the rest of the US,
Speaker 3: will do about five percent. So SpaceX will do about
Speaker 3: ten times as much as the rest of world combined,
Speaker 3: or twenty times as much as China, which is in
Speaker 3: China is doing actually a very impressive job. The reason
Speaker 3: for this is that we're putting it into orbit the
Speaker 3: largest satellite constellation the world has ever seen by far,
Speaker 3: so I think at this point about maybe approaching eighty
Speaker 3: percent of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX and
Speaker 3: they're providing GLOGH high votwordth global connectivity throughout the world.
Speaker 3: In fact, this connection is on a SpaceX connection, so
Speaker 3: very good thing because it means that we can provide
Speaker 3: low cost my bandwidth Internet to parts of the world
Speaker 3: that don't have it or it's very expensive. And I
Speaker 3: think the single biggest thing you can do to lift
Speaker 3: people out of poverty and help them is giving them
Speaker 3: an Internet connection, because once you have the Internet connection,
Speaker 3: you can learn anything for free on the Internet, and
Speaker 3: you can also sell your goods and services to the
Speaker 3: global market. And once you have knowledge by the Internet
Speaker 3: and the ability to engage in commerce, that this is
Speaker 3: going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout
Speaker 3: the world. And it has. And I'd just like to
Speaker 3: think anyone in the audience who may have been helpful
Speaker 3: in you know, with starlink and getting it to approved
Speaker 3: in their country, and I think it's doing a lot
Speaker 3: of good in the countries that have approved it, which
Speaker 3: is I think this point one hundred and thirty countries.
Speaker 2: Are very happy with it.
Speaker 3: I don't currently in space likely getting into the weapons business,
Speaker 3: that's certainly it's not an aspiration. We're freaquing. We're frequently
Speaker 3: asked to do to do weapons programs, but we have
Speaker 3: done by a client.
Speaker 1: Do you envisage SpaceX or Indeed, starlink is a separate
Speaker 1: entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 3: It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
Speaker 3: in the future.
Speaker 1: And what would be the what would be the time frame,
Speaker 1: what kind of time frame you consider it?
Speaker 3: I mean no rush, no, I mean no rush to
Speaker 3: your public. The public is I guess a way to
Speaker 3: you know, potentially make more money, but at the expense
Speaker 3: of a lot of public company overhead and inevitably.
Speaker 2: A whole much of lawsuits, which are very annoying.
Speaker 3: So there's really something needs to be done about the
Speaker 3: share shareholder shareholder derovative lawsuits in the US because it
Speaker 3: allows plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to
Speaker 3: pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet
Speaker 3: plainter for a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit
Speaker 3: against the company, and the irony being that extreme irony
Speaker 3: that even if the class they purport to represent were
Speaker 3: to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit
Speaker 3: will still continue.
Speaker 2: So how can it be a.
Speaker 3: Class action representing a class if the class worked against it.
Speaker 3: And that's the bizarre situation we've got in the US
Speaker 3: that needs a diary to reform. As anyone's running public company,
Speaker 3: you've experienced this, it's an absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 1: Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it. You've
Speaker 1: certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this to him.
Speaker 1: Is this something you're trying to change before any starlink IPO.
Speaker 3: Well, we need a law to be passed. The trouble
Speaker 3: being that you need extent Senate votes and the Democrats
Speaker 3: will vote against it. The plaintiff's bar is I believe,
Speaker 3: the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: That's that's the issue.
Speaker 3: At the state level, this can be solved, and I
Speaker 3: should say Texas recently passed a law which at least
Speaker 3: the state level made it is much more reasonable because
Speaker 3: you have to get at least one in thirty three
Speaker 3: shareholders to agree that they are part of a class
Speaker 3: of shareholders three percent.
Speaker 2: This will be really helped with frivolous lawsuits.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about AI, which is in so many of
Speaker 1: your businesses and in all our worlds in different ways.
Speaker 1: It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI.
Speaker 1: Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago,
Speaker 1: you're in this space of course with GROP which almost
Speaker 1: everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
Speaker 1: and you've obviously got a legal battle with open ai
Speaker 1: and Sam Altman. I wonder if you could say something
Speaker 1: about the status of that, because you were together in
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia with the president last week with Sam Oldman
Speaker 1: in the same place at the same time in the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: So does that mean you are pushing ahead with the
Speaker 1: lawsuit against open AI.
Speaker 3: Yes. So I came up with the name open AI
Speaker 3: as an open source and as a nonprofit, and I
Speaker 3: founded AI opening I for the first roughly fifty million dollars,
Speaker 3: and it was intended to be a nonprofit open source company,
Speaker 3: and now is they're trying to change that for their
Speaker 3: own financial benefit into a for profit company that is
Speaker 3: closed source.
Speaker 2: So this would be like, let's.
Speaker 3: Say you you find it a nonprofit to help preserve
Speaker 3: the Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became
Speaker 3: a lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the word.
Speaker 3: You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I
Speaker 3: found it. That's opening Eye.
Speaker 1: They've made some changes to their corporate instructure, though, haven't
Speaker 1: they since in recognition of of what you've.
Speaker 2: Said, and now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 1: Okay, part they have part they have partly walked back
Speaker 1: their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made
Speaker 1: no difference to how you feel about it. So you
Speaker 1: determined to see them in court.
Speaker 3: Of course.
Speaker 1: Okay, well that's certainly going to be one to watch.
Speaker 1: I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation
Speaker 1: because when you were here last talking to John Mickelfwait,
Speaker 1: you had some pretty strong words about the risk that
Speaker 1: AI poses, and you said that you really felt what
Speaker 1: the US was missing was a federal AI regulator, that
Speaker 1: you know, something along lines of the Food and Drug
Speaker 1: Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now you're clearly now
Speaker 1: in a zone where you're more you're more on the
Speaker 1: cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your
Speaker 1: view changed on the need for an AI regulator?
Speaker 2: Well, so that I don't think there should be regulators.
Speaker 3: You can think of regulators like referees on the on
Speaker 3: the field in sports, there should be some number of referees,
Speaker 3: but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you
Speaker 3: can't kick the ball.
Speaker 2: Without hitting one. So in many in most.
Speaker 3: Fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown over
Speaker 3: time to the point where it's like having more referees
Speaker 3: than players on the field. So, and this is a
Speaker 3: natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity.
Speaker 2: It's very important to appropriate I appreciate this.
Speaker 3: This has happened throughout his When you have an extended
Speaker 3: period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no cleansing
Speaker 3: function for the for unnecessary laws and regulations. So what
Speaker 3: happens is that every year more laws and more regulations
Speaker 3: are pasted, because you know, legislators are going to legislate,
Speaker 3: regulators are going to regulate, and you will get the
Speaker 3: steady pile of more and more laws and regulations of
Speaker 3: a time until everything is illegal. And let me give
Speaker 3: you an example of a truly absurd situation. Under the
Speaker 3: Biden administration, SpaceX was sued for not hiring asylum seekers
Speaker 3: in the US. Now, the problem is, it's actually illegal
Speaker 3: for SpaceX under itar in National Traffic and Arms regulations
Speaker 3: to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of
Speaker 3: the United States, because the premise being that they will
Speaker 3: take advanced rocket technology and return to their country if
Speaker 3: they're not a permanent resident.
Speaker 2: So we're simultaneously.
Speaker 3: In a situation where it's illegal to hire slams US
Speaker 3: and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers and the
Speaker 3: violence Partner of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both
Speaker 3: paths being illegal.
Speaker 2: Down if you do, down if you don't.
Speaker 1: But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI,
Speaker 1: which you said three years ago was needed, and you
Speaker 1: said we need to be proactive on the regulation of
Speaker 1: AI rather than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that?
Speaker 3: No, of course not.
Speaker 2: What no, of course not.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is that there should be some referees
Speaker 3: on the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have
Speaker 3: a field jam packed with referees such that you could
Speaker 3: not kick a ball in any direction without hitting one.
Speaker 3: So the fields that have been around for a long time,
Speaker 3: such as automotive, so aerospace, you know, the sort of
Speaker 3: food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new fields
Speaker 3: like artificial intelligence are underregulated.
Speaker 2: In fact, there is no regulator at.
Speaker 1: All, so they should be.
Speaker 3: Do you still think that, Yes, I'm simply saying, which
Speaker 3: I think is just basic common sense, that you that
Speaker 3: you want to have at least you want to have
Speaker 3: a few referees in the field. You don't want to
Speaker 3: have an army of referees, but you want to have
Speaker 3: a few referees on any given field, in any given sport,
Speaker 3: or even any given arena industrial arena.
Speaker 2: To ensure help that public safety is taken care of.
Speaker 3: But you don't have so there's a there's a there's
Speaker 3: a proper number of referees. Like I said, it's actually
Speaker 3: very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If
Speaker 3: the whole field is packed with referees, that would look absurd.
Speaker 3: But if there were no referees at all, your game
Speaker 3: is not going to be as good.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's then talk about your new world to
Speaker 1: your role advising government. You are in this unique and
Speaker 1: unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts
Speaker 1: with the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX, and also
Speaker 1: now an insiders knowledge of it because of dose. Can
Speaker 1: you see that there is a conflict of interest or
Speaker 1: a potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through
Speaker 1: that very fact?
Speaker 2: I don't think so.
Speaker 3: Actually, there have been many advisors throughout history and the
Speaker 3: US government and others who have had economic interests, And
Speaker 3: I absolutely an advisor.
Speaker 2: I don't have a formal power, and.
Speaker 3: That's a president can choose to accept my advice or not,
Speaker 3: and that's how it goes. If there's a single contract
Speaker 3: that of my companies that have received that people think
Speaker 3: is somehow not was awarded improperly, it would immediately be
Speaker 3: front page news, to say the least. And if I
Speaker 3: hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would. So if you're
Speaker 3: not seeing that, then the clear is not a conflict
Speaker 3: to interest the Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's another way though to look at it.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 1: For example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies like
Speaker 1: Boeing or companies you would like to do more of
Speaker 1: the kind of work you do for NASA Blue Origin
Speaker 1: Rocket Lab. And because DOGE is in every federal government department,
Speaker 1: you or people who work for DOGE and you are
Speaker 1: the driving force behind it, have an insight into those companies'
Speaker 1: affairs and those companies' relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 3: Now, all we do is we review the organization to
Speaker 3: see if the organization has departments that are no longer
Speaker 3: relevant and other contracts that are being awarded good value
Speaker 3: for money. In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high.
Speaker 3: Is there any value of money in a contract and
Speaker 3: if there's if there isn't, then we make recommendations to
Speaker 3: the secretary. The Secretary can then choose to take those
Speaker 3: actions or not take those actions, and that's it.
Speaker 2: And then any action that that is as.
Speaker 3: A function of DOGE is posted to the DOGE website
Speaker 3: and to the DOGE dog Govt at DOGE handle on
Speaker 3: the x platform. So it's it's complete transparency. And I've
Speaker 3: not seen any case where the best min has even
Speaker 3: been an accusation of conflict because it is completely and
Speaker 3: utterly transparent.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: And what about the international dimension. Now, let's think about Starlin.
Speaker 1: Starlink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's
Speaker 1: sought after all over the world. It's critical to the
Speaker 1: frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming
Speaker 1: its way, and there is some evidence that companies are
Speaker 1: allowing access to it because they want to be close
Speaker 1: to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So
Speaker 1: Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is
Speaker 1: working around the rules on black ownership in order to
Speaker 1: allow starlinkin and that is being done on the eve
Speaker 1: of the visit the President Ramaposa is going to make
Speaker 1: to the White House. Do you recognize that as a
Speaker 1: conflict of interest?
Speaker 2: Now, of course not.
Speaker 3: First of all, you should be questioning why is there
Speaker 3: why the racist laws in South Africa. That's the first problem.
Speaker 3: That's what you should be attacking. It's improper for they
Speaker 3: be racist laws in South Africa. The whole idea with
Speaker 3: what Nelson Mandela, who is a great man, proposed, was
Speaker 3: that or racs should be on an equal footing in
Speaker 3: South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not to
Speaker 3: replace one set of racist laws with another set of
Speaker 3: racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper.
Speaker 2: So that's the deal, that all races.
Speaker 3: Should be treated equally and there should be no preference
Speaker 3: given to one or the other, whereas there are.
Speaker 2: Now one hundred and forty laws in South Africa that give.
Speaker 3: That basically give strong preface to you if you're black
Speaker 3: South African and not otherwise. And so now I'm in
Speaker 3: the subsurd situation where I was born in South Africa
Speaker 3: but cannot get a license to outgrates in starlink because
Speaker 3: I'm not black.
Speaker 1: Well, it looks like that's about it looks looks like
Speaker 1: that looks like that's about to change.
Speaker 3: I just asked you a question, please answer, Does that
Speaker 3: seem right to you.
Speaker 1: Well, those rules were designed to bring Those rules were
Speaker 1: designed to bring about an era of more economic equality
Speaker 1: in South Africa, and it looks like the government has
Speaker 1: found a way around those rules for you.
Speaker 2: Ask your question?
Speaker 1: Is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from you.
Speaker 2: Your question yes or no?
Speaker 1: Not for me to answer. I have got a question
Speaker 1: for you about about your government works and the amount
Speaker 1: of savings.
Speaker 2: Why do you like racist laws?
Speaker 1: This is not for me to answer. Come on now,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.
Speaker 2: Do you have to answer this question? Question? Answer? No,
Speaker 2: you answer mine.
Speaker 1: I say, I think if you I'm sure you can
Speaker 1: have that conversation directly with the South African government if
Speaker 1: you want to. I want to ask you.
Speaker 2: About the total believe it, that's not good.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the total allown risks.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the total amount that
Speaker 1: you're planning to save through Doge's work. Before the election,
Speaker 1: you said it was going to be at least two trillion.
Speaker 1: The number currently on doze dog gov is one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy billion dollars. That's a big change. What happened
Speaker 1: to the two trillion.
Speaker 2: Or do you expect it to happen immediately?
Speaker 1: Well, is it going to happen because dose is supposed
Speaker 1: to run till next July.
Speaker 3: I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise.
Speaker 3: Are you assuming that that on day you know, within
Speaker 3: a few months this instant two trillion saved?
Speaker 1: No, I'm not all I'm just asking you, is that
Speaker 1: still your aim?
Speaker 3: Thought willing to get the amount of time? Have we
Speaker 3: not made good progress given the amount of time?
Speaker 1: That's exactly what I'm asking. So, is it's still your
Speaker 1: aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
Speaker 1: two trillion?
Speaker 2: The ability of those to operate is this.
Speaker 3: Function of whether the government and this includes the Congress,
Speaker 3: is willing to take our advice. We're not the dictators
Speaker 3: of the government.
Speaker 2: We are the.
Speaker 3: Advisors, and so we can advise. And the progress who've
Speaker 3: made thus far I think is incredible. Those team has
Speaker 3: done incredible work. But the magnitude of the savings is
Speaker 3: proportionate to the support we get from Congress and from
Speaker 3: the executive branch of the government in general.
Speaker 2: So we're not the dictators. We are the advisors.
Speaker 3: But thus far, for advisors, we two team to their
Speaker 3: credit has made incredible progress.
Speaker 1: You've talked about four billion dollars a day being saved,
Speaker 1: but that that won't get which is an I think
Speaker 1: everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government
Speaker 1: is a very good thing. But if you add that up,
Speaker 1: it's not going to get to two trillion over the
Speaker 1: lifetime of DOUGH. I'm sorry, the four billion, the four
Speaker 1: billion a day, if dose is going to run till
Speaker 1: next July, is not going to get you to two
Speaker 1: trillion dollars. But you still say it's your aim, so
Speaker 1: we'll take that as read.
Speaker 2: There's there's, there's there's what dog I mean, I fail.
Speaker 2: You're somewhat trapped.
Speaker 3: In the NPC dialogue.
Speaker 2: Tree of a traditional work journalist.
Speaker 3: So it's difficult when when I'm conversing with someone who's
Speaker 3: trapped the dialog tree of a conventional journalist, because it's like.
Speaker 2: Talking to a computer.
Speaker 3: So doges an advisory group, we are doing the best
Speaker 3: we can as an advisory group. The progress made thus
Speaker 3: far as an advisory group is excellent. I don't think
Speaker 3: any advisory group has done better in the history of
Speaker 3: advisory groups of the government. Now, we do not make
Speaker 3: the laws nor do we control the judiciary, nor do
Speaker 3: we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors. In
Speaker 3: that context, we are doing very well. Beyond that, we
Speaker 3: cannot we cannot take action beyond that because we are
Speaker 3: not some sort of imperial dictator of the government. There
Speaker 3: are three branches of the government that.
Speaker 2: That art some degree opposed to that level of cost savings.
Speaker 3: Nonetheless, let's let's not criticize whether there's four trillion and
Speaker 3: instead look at the fact that our sixty billion has
Speaker 3: been saved and more we so too.
Speaker 1: And as I said, I think everyone can agree that
Speaker 1: cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being
Speaker 1: responsible with taxpayer money is a very good thing. So yes,
Speaker 1: I can see, I can see that you're proud of
Speaker 1: that work. I do want to ask you about USAID
Speaker 1: and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day,
Speaker 1: which and I know that you called him. I know
Speaker 1: you've said that already.
Speaker 4: I wanted and I'm just who does Bill Gates think
Speaker 4: he is to make comments about the welfare of children,
Speaker 4: given that he is before quented Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, he's he's he said he regrets those and
Speaker 1: he's spent he spent. He spent a lot. He spent
Speaker 1: a lot of his own money on on philanthropy around
Speaker 1: the world over the years. My question to you is,
Speaker 1: have you looked at the data to check if he
Speaker 1: might be right that the cuts to U S a
Speaker 1: I D might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'd like him to show us any any evidence
Speaker 3: whatsoever that that is true. It's false. There were found
Speaker 3: with USA D cuts and by the way, they haven't
Speaker 3: open cut the parts of the U S A D
Speaker 3: that we found to be even slightly useful. We're transferred
Speaker 3: to the stage department, so they've not been deleted. They've
Speaker 3: cerverly been transferred to the stage department. But many many
Speaker 3: times over with US A D and other organizations, when
Speaker 3: we've when they said, oh, well this is going to
Speaker 3: help you know, children, or it's.
Speaker 2: Going to help some.
Speaker 3: Uh disease eradication or something like that, and then when
Speaker 3: we ask for any evidence whatsoever, I say, well, please
Speaker 3: connect us with this group of children so we can
Speaker 3: talk to them and understand more about their issue.
Speaker 2: We get nothing.
Speaker 3: We don't they don't even try to prevent show. We
Speaker 3: should come up with a with it with a show
Speaker 3: orphan meaning like this sort of I'm like, well, can
Speaker 3: we at least see a few kids, like where are they?
Speaker 3: If they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to them
Speaker 3: and talk to their caregivers.
Speaker 2: And then we get that thing.
Speaker 3: As a response because it's what we find is an
Speaker 3: enormous amount of fraud and graft.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me put this example.
Speaker 3: Very little of it actually yets so the kids if
Speaker 3: anything at all.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me put this example to you because you
Speaker 1: grew up in South Africa, so you will know the
Speaker 1: impact of HIV AIDS well. And this is why I
Speaker 1: asked about the data the US led on international efforts
Speaker 1: to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention, and there's an initiative
Speaker 1: called PEP file which is credited with saving twenty six
Speaker 1: million lives in the last twenty years. It was part
Speaker 1: of the Foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited
Speaker 1: waiver its services are disrupted and unaid says if permanly discontinued,
Speaker 1: there will be another four million AIDS related deaths by
Speaker 1: twenty twenty nine. So if you look at that exam,
Speaker 1: which is backed up by data in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: six hundred and thirty thousand people died of AIDS related illnesses,
Speaker 1: then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of
Speaker 1: lives could be lost.
Speaker 3: First of all, the program, the AIDS medication program, is continuing,
Speaker 3: so your fun model premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now,
Speaker 3: do you have another example, not.
Speaker 1: In its entirety, not in its entirety the program there's
Speaker 1: a limited waiver and UNAIDS have said that not all
Speaker 1: of the services that were previously funded by USA IDEA continuing.
Speaker 1: So that's that's why I put that example to you.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded?
Speaker 1: I'll fix it right now for okay, Well, actually they're
Speaker 1: all on the un unaid's website, so you'll be able
Speaker 1: to see them. But mostly they are to deal with.
Speaker 1: Mostly they are to do with, and for example, the
Speaker 1: rollout of a drug called glenna kappavir, which was hailed
Speaker 1: as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years,
Speaker 1: which came out last year. So if you are perhaps
Speaker 1: I'm sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you were able
Speaker 1: to look at that again.
Speaker 3: Yes, but well, if in fact this is true, which
Speaker 3: I doubt it is, then we'll affix it.
Speaker 1: Okay, fine, So finally, political your political influence. I wondered
Speaker 1: whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
Speaker 1: spend on the upcoming midterms.
Speaker 3: Is it?
Speaker 1: You spent a lot more money on the last US
Speaker 1: election than you envisaged when you were speaking here three
Speaker 1: years ago. Are you going to continue to spend at
Speaker 1: that kind of level on future elections?
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 3: In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a
Speaker 3: lot less in the future.
Speaker 1: And why is that?
Speaker 2: I think I've done enough?
Speaker 1: Is it? Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 3: Well, if I see a reason to do political spending
Speaker 3: in the future, I will do it currently see reason?
Speaker 1: Ok what about political influence beyond the US? How often
Speaker 1: do you speak to President Putin?
Speaker 2: I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 1: You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 3: I was on a video caller with him once about
Speaker 3: five years ago.
Speaker 1: That's the only that's the only.
Speaker 3: Speaks President Putin. Oh you must I get it speak.
Speaker 1: Actually, I've heard you. I've heard you speak about it.
Speaker 1: For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh,
Speaker 1: I challenged President Putin to uh to was it an
Speaker 1: arm wrestle? And I know the wall Street Journalist reported
Speaker 1: your reported conversations. If you're if you're saying they haven't
Speaker 1: happened other than once, I'll take that as red.
Speaker 3: Is there worst publication on the face of the earth
Speaker 3: than the Wall Street Journal, I wouldn't use that tolign
Speaker 3: up my cage for paragraphics that that newspaper is the
Speaker 3: worst newspaper in the world. And there's and you know,
Speaker 3: if there's one newspaper that should be pro capitalist, it's
Speaker 3: the one with Wall Street in the name. But it isn't.
Speaker 2: So I have the very lowest opinion of the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal.
Speaker 3: Absolutely answers, and you clearly have believed the tripe that
Speaker 3: you've written that you've written in those papers I read.
Speaker 1: I read very widely, and I'm putting these questions to
Speaker 1: you so that you have an opportunity to respond to them,
Speaker 1: which you are and for which we're all grateful to hear.
Speaker 1: Your response is, okay, we are. We are out of time.
Speaker 3: So you mentioned you mentioned challenging. I did so on
Speaker 3: on the X platform. I challenged Vladimir Putin to single
Speaker 3: combat over the I didn't talk to him. That was
Speaker 3: a post on the X platform.
Speaker 1: That's why, that's why I asked you, and you've and
Speaker 1: you've clarified and explain. Thank you. That's that's why I
Speaker 1: was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and
Speaker 1: you've said you have a video.
Speaker 2: Okay, legacy media lize.
Speaker 1: Okay, listen. I actually thought I might give Grock the
Speaker 1: last word, because when I asked Rock what your hardest
Speaker 1: challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high
Speaker 1: stake ventures made financial, regulatory and public relations crises. And
Speaker 1: I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether you
Speaker 1: do think that this is a pivotal year in your life.
Speaker 2: Well, ever, he has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's
Speaker 2: no different.
Speaker 3: So I mean, in terms of interesting things that probably
Speaker 3: our complish this year, the getting Starship two be fully reusable,
Speaker 3: so that the that we catch them, both the booster
Speaker 3: and the ship, which will be the first fully re
Speaker 3: usable orbital rocket ever in history, which is would be
Speaker 3: a profound breakthrough, as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make.
Speaker 2: Life multiplanetary and ultimately become.
Speaker 3: A space faring civilization. We've got neuralink, which is now
Speaker 3: helped five patients restore capability using the Telefty implant where
Speaker 3: they're able to control the computer simply by thinking, we'll
Speaker 3: be doing our first patient to restore blank just rest
Speaker 3: restore site with our blind site implant, which is the
Speaker 3: end of this year early next.
Speaker 2: In fact, that that first patient might be in U
Speaker 2: a E.
Speaker 3: Since we have a relationship with you AE and the
Speaker 3: Cleveland clinic clinic there the I think what's running on
Speaker 3: the AI front, we are close to what you might
Speaker 3: call a GI or digital superintelligent, and I think we'll
Speaker 3: see we are seeing an explosion of digital super intelligence here.
Speaker 2: And then we've got to at Tesla the what we'll.
Speaker 3: Be launching unsupervised autonomy basically self driving cars with no one.
Speaker 2: In them in Austin next month. So it's it's a
Speaker 2: big year for sure. Many other things on the in
Speaker 2: the in the works too. I'm a technologist first and
Speaker 2: foremost