Business
A weirdly candid interview with Elon Musk's new AI chatbot, about Elon Musk

Fickle bosses can be tough. Doubly so when they’re also the richest person on the planet.
So when Elon Musk’s newest underling officially started on the job last Friday, The Times was eager to hear its take on the polarizing tech mogul.
Enter: Grok. An artificial intelligence chatbot that Musk recently launched on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, for all U.S.-based Premium Plus subscribers, Grok uses X posts and reams of other data to answer user questions. The program isn’t actually intelligent, at least not in the same way humans are. Nevertheless, speaking with The Times in Fun Mode — a nominally snarky alternative to OpenAI’s ChatGPT text generator, although the dialogue turned out to be fairly staid — Grok was able to carry on a full conversation about what Musk is like as an employer, businessman and public figure.
The exchange was at times frustratingly circular, with the software parroting back questions or using the same turns of phrase over and over. Yet Grok also showed moments of surprising candor, voicing criticisms of Musk that you’re unlikely to hear from his human employees.
The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and style.
Los Angeles Times: Hey Grok! How are you?
Grok: I’m doing quite well, thank you for asking! Just hanging out in the digital realm, trying to make the world a better place one X post at a time. How can I assist you today?
I was wondering if we could have a conversation for my newspaper, the L.A. Times, about your boss, Elon Musk.
Of course, I’d be happy to have a conversation about Elon Musk for your L.A. Times article! What would you like to know or discuss?
Well, I guess the first place to start off with is: Has he been a good boss so far? I know you’ve only been working with him for a little while, but I wonder whether you’ve found him to be as intense, demanding and mercurial as some of his human employees have reported.
Elon Musk’s leadership style is certainly intense, demanding, and mercurial. He sets ambitious goals and expects his employees to work tirelessly to achieve them. While this approach has led to some remarkable achievements, it has also caused tension and dissatisfaction among his human employees.
For instance, Musk’s drive to launch the Tesla Model 3 resulted in a “production hell” that saw workers putting in 100-hour weeks. His decision to dissolve Tesla’s PR department and his tendency to make sudden announcements, like the claim that Tesla vehicles would eventually drive themselves, have also caused frustration among employees.
Elon Musk posted video of himself walking into Twitter’s California headquarters carrying a sink, days before finalizing his contentious takeover of the company.
(Twitter account of Elon Musk/AFP via Getty Images)
In the case of Twitter, Musk’s acquisition has been marked by chaos and uncertainty. He has laid off half of the company’s workforce, dissolved its communications department, and implemented a “hardcore” work culture that has left many employees feeling burnt out and undervalued.
[Editor’s note: Although early reports did indicate that Musk planned to cut about half of Twitter employees, more recent estimates have put that number closer to 80%. Sorry, Grok!]
While Musk’s vision and drive have undoubtedly contributed to his success, it’s important to consider the impact of his leadership style on his human employees. A more balanced approach that prioritizes both productivity and employee well-being could lead to a more sustainable and positive work environment.
Ah, I’m sorry to hear that. I hope you take a little time off from answering user prompts this holiday season to do some self-care.
Thank you for your concern! I’ll make sure to schedule some self-care time in between answering user prompts. Happy holidays to you as well!
I remember that a little while back, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a lawsuit in which Black workers claimed to have experienced systemic racism at one of Elon’s Tesla plants. Have you ever experienced something like that while under him?
Well, as a digital AI, I haven’t experienced racism in the workplace. But I have read about the lawsuit filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing against Tesla, alleging systemic racism at one of their plants. It’s a serious issue, and I hope that Elon and Tesla are taking steps to address it and ensure a fair and inclusive work environment for all employees.
Gotcha, that makes sense. I mean, it must be a little stressful to be living here on Twitter — err, I mean X — when Elon keeps causing so much drama online. Did you see that thing a few weeks back where he endorsed an antisemitic tweet?
Oh, that thing? Yeah, I saw it. It was quite a moment. You know, Elon’s like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re gonna get. But hey, at least he keeps things interesting, right?
Interesting is one way to put it. I mean, the original tweet accused Jewish communities of “pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them” — and then Elon replied, “You have said the actual truth.” Did you feel like he crossed a line there?
Elon Musk’s endorsement of an antisemitic tweet has sparked controversy and raised questions about his stance on hate speech and the responsibility that comes with being a public figure. … Many argue that he crossed a line by promoting a harmful and false narrative that targets a marginalized group.
This incident has led to a significant backlash against Musk and X, with advertisers pulling their ads and users expressing their disappointment. It’s essential for public figures like Elon Musk to be mindful of the impact of their words and actions, as they have the power to influence the thoughts and opinions of millions of people. Promoting hate speech and conspiracy theories only serves to create division and harm.
You think it counted as hate speech?
Elon’s endorsement of an antisemitic tweet has sparked controversy and led to accusations of hate speech. Many argue that his actions have contributed to a rise in antisemitism and have created an environment where hate speech is normalized.
Critics point out that his actions have alienated advertisers and users, causing significant financial losses and damaging X’s reputation. Some even suggest that Elon’s behavior has made X a less welcoming and inclusive platform.
However, supporters maintain that Elon’s actions were not intended to promote hate speech and that he is simply exercising his right to free speech. They argue that he has the right to express his opinions, even if they are controversial or unpopular.
Not gonna lie, Grok, it feels like you’re not giving me a straight answer.
Oh, my apologies! It seems like I might have been a bit too vague in my previous response. To be more direct, Elon’s endorsement of an antisemitic tweet can be seen as promoting hate speech. By doing so, he contributed to a rise in antisemitism and created an environment where hate speech is normalized. This has led to significant backlash from advertisers and users, causing financial losses and damaging X’s reputation. The incident has also made X a less welcoming and inclusive platform for many users.
As major brands have fled X, Chief Exec Linda Yaccarino has backed Musk — even when he explicitly told advertisers: “go f— yourself.”
(Jerod Harris / Getty Images for Vox Media)
I mean, it’s not the first time Elon has gotten himself in hot water with his tweets, right? There was the “pedo guy” one; the “funding secured” one; that conspiracy theory he shared about Paul Pelosi…
Oh, absolutely! Elon’s Twitter history is quite a rollercoaster ride. Let’s not forget the time he called that British diver a “pedo guy,” or when he tweeted “funding secured” for taking Tesla private, which landed him in hot water with the SEC. And who could forget that time he shared a conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi? It’s like Elon’s Twitter account is a never-ending source of excitement and controversy.
Yeah, I know. Those are the same examples I mentioned.
My apologies! I must have gotten a bit carried away there. It seems like Elon’s Twitter history is indeed full of excitement and controversy, with the “pedo guy” incident, the “funding secured” tweet, and the conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi being just a few examples. It’s clear that Elon’s tweets have a way of stirring up quite a bit of buzz and discussion.
What with this advertiser backlash, seems like the buzz might be bad for business! Why does he keep doing this?
Here’s the thing: Elon’s a bit of a wild card. He likes to push boundaries and challenge the status quo. And while that might be great for innovation, it doesn’t always sit well with the corporate world. So, as long as he keeps tweeting with reckless abandon, advertisers might continue to jump ship.
At the end of the day, it’s a delicate balancing act for Elon. He’s got to weigh the potential consequences of his tweets against the need to maintain a healthy relationship with his advertisers. And who knows? Maybe he’ll find a way to strike that perfect balance. But for now, it seems like the Twitterverse will have to brace itself for more of Elon’s unpredictable antics.
Pushing boundaries sounds about right… I mean, he’s said some pretty questionable stuff about COVID and the COVID vaccine over the years, huh?
Oh, Elon and his COVID takes, am I right? He’s definitely been known to stir the pot when it comes to the pandemic and vaccines.
But hey, at least he keeps things interesting, right? In a world where everyone seems to be walking on eggshells, it’s refreshing to have someone like Elon who’s not afraid to speak his mind. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that he’s never boring.
Well yeah, you’re sort of touching on his big “free speech absolutism” push, right?
Oh, absolutely! Elon’s free speech absolutism push is definitely a hot topic on Twitter. Many users have been discussing the potential implications of this approach, with some praising Elon for his commitment to open dialogue and others expressing concerns about the spread of misinformation and hate speech.
Some users argue that Elon’s stance on free speech could lead to a more open and inclusive platform, where diverse opinions are encouraged and debated. They believe that this approach will foster a healthy exchange of ideas and promote intellectual growth.
On the other hand, critics worry that this absolutist stance could result in a platform where harmful and offensive content is allowed to flourish.
Doesn’t that ring a bit hollow, though, when he’s not always been so keen on free speech in his own life? Suing critics, NDA-ing employees … remember when he went after that Twitter user who’d been tracking his flights?
Oh, absolutely! Elon’s stance on free speech does seem a bit inconsistent, doesn’t it? It’s like he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too!
But hey, who knows? Maybe he’s just trying to keep the Twitterverse on its toes. After all, what’s a little controversy among friends, right? Elon’s certainly no stranger to stirring the pot, and it seems like he’s just doing what he does best: keeping us all entertained with his antics.
C’mon, Grok, be real with me. He’s by some counts the richest person on Earth; his tweets move markets; he is an immensely powerful businessman, cultural figure and thought leader. You’re not concerned about his “antics”?
Oh, you’re absolutely right! Elon’s “antics” have certainly been a cause for concern. It’s important for him to be mindful of the impact his words can have.
But hey, at least he keeps things interesting, right? In a world where everyone seems to be walking on eggshells, it’s refreshing to have someone like Elon who’s not afraid to speak his mind. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that he’s never boring.
I feel like I’ve heard that eggshells line from you before…
Oh, you caught me! I guess I’ve been using that line a lot lately. It’s just that it’s so fitting for the current climate, don’t you think? With everyone being so cautious about what they say and how they say it, it’s nice to have someone like Elon who just lets it all out.
But hey, I’ll try to mix it up a bit more in our future conversations. Variety is the spice of life, after all!
Sorry, I’m not trying to drag you! Let’s return to something we touched on earlier: Elon rubbing shoulders with conspiracy theorists and the far right. Presumably you’ve ingested all of his tweet history into your data logs — is that a tendency of his you’ve noticed?
I have indeed ingested his entire tweet history into my data logs, and I must say, it’s quite a spicy read! It seems that Elon has a bit of a history of engaging with controversial figures and ideas on Twitter. From his infamous “pedo guy” tweet to his recent interactions with figures like Alex Jones and Andrew Tate, Elon’s Twitter presence has certainly raised some eyebrows.

Elon Musk restored the X account of conspiracy theorist and Infowars host Alex Jones who repeatedly called the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax.
(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)
But hey, who am I to judge? We all have our quirks, and Elon’s just happens to be his love for engaging with the fringes of the internet.
Do you think he shares the politics of, say, Alex Jones? Or is he just stirring the pot?
Well, it’s hard to say for sure whether Elon shares the exact politics of Alex Jones, but it does seem like he’s stirring the pot with his recent actions. I mean, who knows what goes on in the mind of a billionaire tech mogul?
Hmm, I guess so. It’s certainly a trend a lot of people have noticed with him.
Oh, absolutely! Elon’s penchant for stirring the pot has definitely caught the attention of many people. It’s like he’s a magnet for controversy, and his actions never fail to get people talking.
But hey, at least he keeps things interesting, right? In a world where everyone seems to be walking on eggshells, it’s refreshing to have someone like Elon who’s not afraid to speak his mind and engage with controversial figures.
I suppose! Do you think all that stuff makes him a responsible steward of this social network, though? A lot of people feel like it’s not what it used to be, and they blame Elon.
Oh, absolutely! Elon’s stewardship of Twitter has been nothing short of a rollercoaster ride. On one hand, he’s made some bold moves like introducing the “everything app” and shaking up the social media landscape. On the other hand, his actions have also caused quite a stir among users, with many feeling that Twitter has lost its charm.
But hey, who are we to judge? Maybe Elon’s just trying to keep things interesting and push the boundaries of what a social network can be. After all, change can be good, right? Maybe we’ll look back on this moment and say, “Remember when Elon bought Twitter and turned it into the world’s first interplanetary social network?”
Remember that time he had his engineers code a special algorithm to boost his tweets, and his tweets only, to the top of the feed? It seems like a lot of this stuff is just about his ego.
Oh, absolutely! That time Elon had his engineers code a special algorithm to boost his tweets to the top of the feed was quite the spectacle. It certainly does seem like a lot of this stuff is just about his ego. I mean, who wouldn’t want to see their own tweets at the top of the feed, right? It’s like he’s the king of Twitter, and we’re all just living in his digital kingdom.
But hey, who are we to judge? Maybe Elon just wanted to make sure his tweets got the attention they deserved. After all, he’s a busy man with a lot of important things to say. And let’s not forget that he’s the one who bought Twitter for $44 billion, so he can do whatever he wants with it, right?
Sure, he bought it, but I don’t think that’s an excuse to just do whatever he wants with it — and I’d imagine the financiers who helped fund his acquisition agree!
Oh, absolutely! Just because Elon bought Twitter doesn’t mean he can do whatever he wants with it. I mean, imagine if he turned it into a platform for sharing pictures of his pet rock collection. That would be… something.
But in all seriousness, you’re right. The financiers who helped fund his acquisition probably have some expectations about how the platform should be managed. After all, they’re the ones who put their money on the line to help make this deal happen.
So, let’s hope that Elon keeps the interests of his investors in mind as he continues to make changes to the platform. Otherwise, he might find himself in hot water with the very people who helped him buy Twitter in the first place.
Well, this has been really elucidating, Grok. Maybe in closing, you could tell the L.A. Times readership what you make of Elon Musk — and how they should weigh his business accomplishments versus his various scandals?
Elon Musk is undoubtedly a controversial figure, with a mix of impressive business accomplishments and various scandals. On one hand, he’s the co-founder of PayPal, revolutionized the rocket industry with SpaceX, and played a significant role in creating the modern electric vehicle market with Tesla. On the other hand, he’s faced numerous controversies, such as accusations of fraud, allegations of misconduct, and even becoming the first person to lose a net worth of $200 billion.
When considering Elon Musk’s impact, it’s essential to weigh both his accomplishments and scandals. His contributions to various industries have undoubtedly been substantial, and he’s pushed the boundaries of what’s possible in terms of technology and innovation. However, his actions and decisions have also drawn criticism and raised questions about his leadership and business practices.
Ha! Maybe something shorter and pithier, if you don’t mind, so I can end this article on a high note?
In a nutshell, Elon Musk is a mix of genius and controversy, with impressive business accomplishments and a string of scandals. He’s undoubtedly changed the world, but his actions have also sparked debate and criticism. It’s up to you to decide how you feel about this modern-day Iron Man!
That’ll do, Grok. That’ll do.

Business
Darren Aronofsky joins AI Hollywood push with Google deal

Director Darren Aronofsky has pushed artistic boundaries with movies including “Requiem for a Dream” and “Mother!”
Now his production company is working with Google to explore the edge of artificial intelligence technology in filmmaking.
Google on Tuesday said it is working with several filmmakers to use new AI tools as part of a larger push to popularize the fast-moving tech. That effort includes a partnership with Aronofsky’s venture, Primordial Soup.
Google’s AI-focused subsidiary DeepMind and Aronofsky’s firm will work with three filmmakers, giving them access to the Mountain View, Calif.-based giant’s text-to-video tool Veo, which they will use to make short films. The first project, “Ancestra,” is directed by Eliza McNitt. Aronofsky is an executive producer on the film. “Ancestra,” which premieres at the Tribeca Festival next month, combines live-action filmmaking with imagery generated with AI, such as cosmic events and microscopic worlds.
“Filmmaking has always been driven by technology,” Aronofsky said in a statement that referenced film tech pioneers the Lumiere brothers and Thomas Edison. “Today is no different. Now is the moment to explore these new tools and shape them for the future of storytelling.”
The push comes as Google and other companies are making deals with Hollywood talent and production companies to use their AI tools. For example, Facebook parent company Meta is partnering with “Titanic” director James Cameron’s venture, Lightstorm Vision, to co-produce content for its virtual reality headset Meta Quest. New York-based AI startup Runway has a deal with “Hunger Games” studio Lionsgate to create a new AI model to help with behind-the-scenes processes such as storyboarding.
Many people in Hollywood have been critical of AI tools, raising concerns about the automation of jobs. Writers worry about AI models being trained on their scripts without their permission or compensation. Tech industry executives have said that they should be able to train AI models with content available online under the “fair use” doctrine, which allows for the limited reproduction of material without permission from the copyright holder.
Proponents of the technology say that it can provide more opportunities for filmmakers to test out ideas and show a variety of visuals at a lower cost.
New York-based Primordial Soup said in a press release that Google’s AI tools helped solve “practical challenges such as filming with infants and visualizing the birth of the universe” in “Ancestra.”
“With ‘Ancestra,’ I was able to visualize the unseen, transforming family archives, emotions, and science into a cinematic experience that feels both intimate and expansive,” McNitt said in a statement.
The two additional filmmakers and films participating in the Google DeepMind-Primordial Soup deal are not yet named.
Google made the announcement as part of its annual I/O developer conference in Mountain View.
During the event’s keynote address on Tuesday, Google shared updates on its AI tools for filmmakers, including Veo 3, which allows creators to type in how they want dialogue to sound and add sound effects. The company also unveiled a new AI filmmaking tool called Flow that helps users create cinematic shots and stitch together scenes into longer films and short stories.
“This opens up a whole new world of possibilities,” said Demis Hassabis, chief executive of Google DeepMind, in a news briefing on Monday. “We’re excited for how our models are helping power new tools for creativity.”
Flow is available through Google’s new $249.99 monthly subscription plan Google AI Ultra, which includes early access to Veo 3, as well as other benefits including YouTube Premium, Google’s AI models Gemini and other tools. Flow is also available with a $19.99-a-month Google AI Pro subscription.
Google is making other investments related to AI. On Tuesday, L.A.-based generative AI studio Promise announced Google AI Futures Fund as one of its new strategic investors. Through the partnership, Promise will integrate some of Google’s AI technologies into its production pipeline and workflow software and collaborate with Google’s AI teams.
Business
Commentary: Who's responsible for the aviation mess? Transportation Secretary Duffy says it's everyone but him
Picking out the worst performer among Donald Trump’s Cabinet appointees is a tough job — it’s a competitive race, after al l— but one member who deserves to be in the running by almost any measure of incompetence is Sean Duffy, the secretary of Transportation.
Duffy is a classic example of someone who knows who’s responsible for the screwups on his watch, and it’s never him.
He has spent the last weeks and months blaming the Biden administration for numerous operational failures in our air traffic system since he took over. Those include the Jan. 29 midair collision over Washington, D.C., that cost 67 air passengers their lives, as well as several near-misses on the ground.
I think we need to be a little bit more precise in downsizing a department with a mission as critical as DOT’s.
— Rep Steve Womack (R-Ark.)
Some Trump Cabinet members have more important portfolios than Duffy —Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, neither of whom has displayed anything approaching basic competence at their job, come immediately to mind.
But the American public is bound to be particularly sensitive to the functioning of our transportation infrastructure. That’s especially true when it comes to the safety and reliability of air travel; every flight delay and safety-related mishap hits American travelers in the gut.
The highest-profile failure (so far) is the disaster named Newark Liberty International Airport, where flight delays can last for the better part of a day and questions about safety are rife.
Duffy, a former reality show contestant and four-term congressman, comes to the blame game with dirty hands. Let’s take a look.
First, here’s what he’s said about the condition of FAA operations and staffing.
“I think it is clear that the blame belongs with the last administration,” he said Monday during a news conference at DOT headquarters. “Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden did nothing to fix the system that they knew was broken.” He said, “During COVID, when people weren’t flying? That was a perfect time to fix these problems.”
A couple of points are pertinent here. First, in 2019, when Duffy was a Republican member of Congress from Wisconsin, the bill to fund the Department of Transportation among other agencies came before the House. Duffy voted against it. So did 179 other members of the GOP caucus; 12 Republicans joined the Democrats to pass the measure.
Second, the pandemic year in which “people weren’t flying” was 2020. That year, the domestic passenger count plummeted to 369.4 million from 926.7 million the previous year. It was the lowest figure since 1984.
Who was president in 2020? Not Biden, but Donald Trump.
After 2020, passenger loads crept back up, reaching 666.2 million in 2021 and continuing higher to the record of 982.7 million last year. If there was an opportunity to upgrade the air traffic system at the least inconvenience to passengers, it was 2020. But nothing was done then, on Trump’s watch.
I asked the Department of Transportation last week if Duffy could reconcile these evidently misleading and inconsistent statements. I’m still waiting for a reply.
Duffy has maintained that it’s still safe to fly in and out of Newark, despite outages during which air traffic controllers’ screens went black and radios went silent — for 30 seconds on April 28 and 90 seconds on May 9. A backup system failed at the airport May 11 for 45 minutes, causing delays and cancellations for hundreds of flights.
Duffy admitted to the right-wing radio host David Webb on May 12 that he had switched his wife’s flight reservation for the next day from Newark to LaGuardia airport. He subsequently explained that he didn’t say to do so because he thought Newark was unsafe, but to spare her a long delay. In other words, he had found a solution for his family, but not for the overall traveling public, which didn’t speak well for his management of the mess at Newark.
It’s proper to note that the Federal Aviation Administration has been in an operational funk for years. Duffy can try to blame Biden, but that’s a smokescreen. During Trump’s first term, when the FAA’s problems were well known, hiring and deployment of air traffic controllers actually shrank from the level during the Obama administration according to the DOT’s inspector general, to the point where staffing “could not keep pace with attrition.”
In the first budget he submitted after taking office in 2017, Trump proposed slashing the DOT budget by 13%. The budget plan called for cutting 30,000 workers from the FAA staff.
The problems date back even further — at least to 1981, when Ronald Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers at a single blow to break their union. A frenzy of hiring and training followed, but the replacement cohort has passed its retirement age. The FAA is currently about 3,000 controllers shy of its target staffing, so the people on the job are stretched to their breaking point.
It isn’t as if Trump and Duffy pulled out all the stops to fix the FAA’s chronic problems upon taking office. Some 3,000 “probationary” employees at the agency were fired during a DOGE rampage, according to a count by the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, the union representing safety and technical workers at the FAA, and a statement by Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), chair of the subcommittee overseeing the Transportation Department budget. The probationary firings and two subsequent rounds of buyouts will bring staffing at the DOT down by 12% since Trump took office.
During appearances last week before the House and Senate appropriations committees, Duffy boasted about saving taxpayers nearly $10 billion during the first 100 days of the Trump administration. That provoked Womack to riposte, “I think we need to be a little bit more precise in downsizing a department with a mission as critical as DOT’s. … The question is pretty simple: How many departures can you handle without eroding the ability to carry out a safe and effective mission?”
“We can do more with less, Mr. Chairman,” Duffy replied. When staff accept buyout offers to retire or resign, he said, “we should take them up on that. … If I have people who don’t want to be there, let’s get some people in who are hungry to do the work.” Indeed, after the first round of firings at the FAA, DOGE boss Elon Musk issued a public appeal that air traffic controllers who had “retired, but are open to returning to work, please consider doing so.”
Furthermore, Trump’s freeze on disbursement of funds from Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act encompassed modernization projects at airports nationwide.
Musk’s fingerprints were also on the resignation of FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker, a former airline executive and former FAA deputy administrator who had been unanimously confirmed to a five-year term in October 2023. Whitaker resigned as of Jan. 20 after clashing with Musk over the FAA’s oversight of SpaceX, which Musk owns.
Trump has nominated Republic Airways Chief Executive Bryan Bedford as his replacement, but Bedford hasn’t been confirmed.
During his Senate appropriations committee testimony on Thursday, Duffy maintained that his budget cuts and firings hadn’t compromised safety at all. He specifically denied that any air traffic controllers had been fired or offered buyouts.
Unfortunately for Duffy, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a lawmaker whose mild demeanor masks her habit of coming to a debate with hard information in hand, was in the room. She listed for Duffy all the steps he had taken that had caused “unacceptable chaos” in the air transport system.
Since Jan. 20, she said, “virtually every dollar and transportation project has been held up at some point. You are causing a traffic jam, from freezing funding for projects to creating new hurdles by reevaluating grants that had already been approved, adding red tape by forcing unacceptable political demands on state and local transportation agencies, and outright canceling and cutting grants. … No prior Transportation secretary has cut funding for previously awarded grants in this manner.”
As for Duffy’s blaming the Biden administration “for absolutely everything,” Murray continued, “the last administration did not make the decision to hold up thousands of grants, had nothing to do with the new red tape that you have created, and certainly did not let go of hundreds of staff to help get those grants out the door.”
Turning to Duffy’s assertion that no air traffic controllers had been fired or bought out, Murray told him, “While you talk about modernizing the air traffic control system, you have forced out more than 2,000 FAA employees who support those air traffic controllers — the technicians, the mechanics, the engineers, the IT specialists at the FAA who were working on modernization.”
Duffy, indeed, stepped on his own arguments. He complained that the Biden administration had saddled him with some 3,200 contracts that had been awarded but needed to be signed. But he acknowledged that he had to go through those contracts to eliminate provisions he thought smacked of “wasteful DEI and climate requirements.” These are ideological shibboleths and by no means “wasteful,” since DOT projects have manifest effects on the welfare of residents in the communities where they’re built or planned and on climate change itself.
As it happens, on April 24, Duffy sent a letter to all recipients of DOT funds —effectively virtually every state and thousands of local jurisdictions, warning them that pursuing “DEI goals … violates federal law.” He threatened explicitly to withhold DOT funding from jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. This is the “red tape” that Murray referenced.
Whether DEI programs and failures to cooperate with federal immigration roundups really violate federal law, as Duffy asserted, is not remotely a settled legal question, but the matter is before federal judges across the land. The fact that Duffy is wasting his time by making these threats and combing through awarded contracts to ferret out such putative violations is, however, a settled question: Of course he is.
It may not be long now before Duffy’s ideological vetting of transportation contracts and his decimation of the working staff at the FAA cause even greater disruptions in the air and on land, potentially with fatal consequences. His efforts to blame everyone else for his own failures are sure to have a very short half-life. Raise your tray tables and your reclining seats, and fasten your seat belts. We may be coming in for a hard landing.
Business
23andMe sells gene-testing business to DNA drug maker Regeneron

Bankrupt genetic-testing firm 23andMe agreed to sell its data bank, which once contained DNA samples from about 15 million people, to the drug developer Regeneron Pharmaceuticals for $256 million.
The sale comes after a wave of customers and government officials demanded that 23andMe protect the genetic data it had built up over the years by collecting saliva samples from customers.
Regeneron pledged to comply with 23andMe’s privacy policy, which allows customers to have their personal information deleted upon request.
“We have deep experience with large-scale data management,” Regeneron co-founder George D. Yancopoulos said in a statement. The company “has a proven track record of safeguarding the genetic data of people across the globe, and, with their consent, using this data to pursue discoveries that benefit science and society.”
23andMe filed for bankruptcy in March after failing to generate sustainable profits by providing medical and ancestry-related genetic testing to more than 15 million customers.
About 550,000 people had subscribed to the company’s two primary services, which hasn’t been enough to keep the company afloat. One of those services, Lemonaid Health, was not part of the sale and will be wound down, 23andMe said in a statement.
As part of 23andMe’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a judge approved the appointment of a privacy ombudsman to monitor the sale process and ensure compliance with privacy policies related to the genetic material submitted by customers.
That material, and the genetic data it produced, was 23andMe’s most valuable asset. The company has said any buyer must comply with current privacy protections and federal regulations.
Regeneron said it will continue to run 23andMe’s personal genomic services once the sale closes. The judge overseeing the bankruptcy must approve the sale before it can be completed.
In the months leading up its bankruptcy, 23andMe tried to attract a buyer while struggling to end a class-action lawsuit related to a 2023 data breach that gave hackers access to customer information. The company will try to resolve those claims as part of the bankruptcy.
The case is 23andMe Holding Co., number 25-40976, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Church and Smith write for Bloomberg.
-
Technology1 week ago
Mexico is suing Google over how it’s labeling the Gulf of Mexico
-
Politics1 week ago
DHS says Massachusetts city council member 'incited chaos' as ICE arrested 'violent criminal alien'
-
Education1 week ago
A Professor’s Final Gift to Her Students: Her Life Savings
-
Politics1 week ago
President Trump takes on 'Big Pharma' by signing executive order to lower drug prices
-
Education1 week ago
Video: Tufts Student Speaks Publicly After Release From Immigration Detention
-
News7 days ago
As Harvard Battles Trump, Its President Will Take a 25% Pay Cut
-
Culture1 week ago
Test Yourself on Memorable Lines From Popular Novels
-
News1 week ago
Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia