Connect with us

Business

California reserved $165 million for Tesla to electrify its trucking industry. The result may stifle EV innovation

Published

on

California reserved 5 million for Tesla to electrify its trucking industry. The result may stifle EV innovation

A California clean-air program, designed to rapidly electrify the state’s truck and bus fleets, has recently faced intense criticism for reserving its largest-ever tranche of funding to subsidize Tesla’s all-electric semi-truck, a largely unproven vehicle with a dubious production timeline.

In the past year, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and its nonprofit partner CALSTART have set aside nearly 1,000 vouchers, worth at least $165 million, to provide commercial fleets with steep markdowns on the long-delayed Tesla Semi, according to state data obtained by The Times. The battery-powered big rig has been advertised as a groundbreaking freight truck capable of traveling up to 500 miles on a single charge.

But the news of Tesla’s windfall outraged some in the trucking industry, who allege the state provided the world’s wealthiest automaker with preferential treatment for a vehicle that is not ready.

Nearly eight years since Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk unveiled the Tesla Semi as a concept, it still isn’t widely available in stock. It has repeatedly faced production delays and still doesn’t have a publicly advertised retail price.

In fact, some critics argue the Tesla Semi shouldn’t have qualified for government funding at all. At the time Tesla submitted its voucher requests, the vehicle didn’t appear to have the necessary certifications and approvals to be sold and legally driven on California roads.

Advertisement

Still, the 992 state-administered incentives have effectively established the Tesla Semi as the front-runner in the electrified heavy-duty truck class.

“I don’t think it would be an overstatement to say this is market distortion or market manipulation,” said Alexander Voets, general manager at RIZON Truck USA, a commercial electric truck brand. “CARB essentially single-handedly just made Tesla the market leader for electric vehicles for [heavy-duty trucks] without them having [virtually] any vehicles in customer hands.”

Historic funding, murky data

The funding was tentatively awarded through the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), a state program aimed at reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in the goods-movement sector and in public transit. Since its creation in 2009, the program has dedicated over $1.6 billion — a mix of state funding and incentives from local ports — toward helping fleets purchase electric, hydrogen and other low-emission vehicles.

The state program aims to solve an outsize problem: Heavy-duty trucks make up only 10% of vehicles on U.S. roads, but they produce 45% of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and 58% of lung-aggravating soot.

But experts say that the state program has lacked thorough oversight and accountability, allowing a small group of manufacturers to exploit the program’s robust endowments.

Advertisement

Since The Times began raising questions about Tesla’s vouchers, the state’s public data for the HVIP have drastically changed, reflecting lower funding amounts for Tesla and other major automakers. State officials had reserved the maximum amount for which the vehicle qualified — a number much higher than the retail price. In late January, officials revised the publicly accessible data so that the numbers no longer included local port funding that was awarded through the program — making it appear that Tesla received tens of millions less in funding.

CARB officials also noted that EV incentives from local utilities — not administered through the state voucher program — helped subsidize the Tesla Semi orders and ultimately lessen grant funding awarded by the state.

An analysis of earlier data by The Times showed that Tesla may have been poised to receive up to $202 million, roughly a third of all funding allocated during 2025 and 2026. The Tesla vouchers had each been worth from $120,000 to $430,000 but now are listed between $84,000 and $351,000.

Even after the revisions, Tesla is still poised to receive about $165 million, significantly more than any other single auto manufacturer. New Flyer, a Canadian bus manufacturer, secured the HVIP program’s second-highest funding, about $68 million, less than half that of Tesla.

Though its retail price has still not been publicly disclosed, state documents obtained by The Times show that the Tesla Semi generally sells for around $260,000 for the standard model with 300-mile range and $300,000 for the long-range model with 500-mile range.

Advertisement

The price has been one of the greatest selling points, as the average cost of a zero-emission big rig was $435,000 in 2024, according to CARB.

The state voucher program offers up to a 90% discount on the list price for private fleet operators.

Tesla’s questionable qualifications

To qualify for a voucher, manufacturers must obtain a zero-emission powertrain certification showing the vehicle meets certain performance standards. Each model year of the vehicle also needs to receive written approval from CARB, and the vehicle must be listed in the HVIP catalog.

The 2024 Tesla Semi was listed as an eligible vehicle by CARB, despite not having powertrain certification registered on CARB’s website. No subsequent model years were displayed as eligible before Tesla applied for government incentives.

“I still haven’t seen any proof that Tesla has been able to satisfy the requirements,” said a senior official at another EV manufacturer, who feared reprisal from state officials if they spoke out publicly.

Advertisement

“That is really concerning to me, because these are rules that I have to follow. So, how are they getting around this? And how has CARB not caught this?”

Tesla did not respond to multiple requests for comment. CARB officials did not directly answer how Tesla secured state funding.

“The process for vehicle or engine certification includes the review and processing of confidential business information, thus the certification status of any truck is confidential,” a spokesperson said in a statement to The Times.

However, CARB insisted that Tesla would not receive any state-administered funding until requirements are met and vehicles are delivered to customers.

A WattEv Transport Inc. Tesla Semi electric truck.

A WattEv Transport Inc. Tesla Semi electric truck sits parked next to BYD electric trucks by a charging station at the Port of Long Beach in April.

(Patrick T Fallon / AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

That provides little consolation to other manufacturers.

Even if Tesla fails to deliver the trucks and doesn’t eventually receive government incentives, it prevents other automakers — with EVs in stock — from utilizing the funding more immediately. Losing out on these funding opportunities could be critical for some smaller EV companies.

“That hurts the rest of us,” said Peter Tawil, director of sales and marking at RIZON and longtime promoter for the EV industry. “Our trucks can be delivered tomorrow.”

“If this doesn’t get corrected, our whole industry will just go down the toilet.”

Advertisement

A lifeline for EV makers

Tesla’s funding surge came two years after state officials quietly eliminated the limit of vouchers a single manufacturer can secure at one time, a key guardrail intended to prevent major automakers from hoarding California’s clean-transportation funding and stalling the deployment of electric vehicles.

Typically, auto dealerships secure purchase orders from private or public fleet operators interested in buying their zero-emission vehicles at the lower rates facilitated by the state incentives. Then, the dealerships submit voucher requests — for up to 20 vehicles at a time for most businesses — to obtain those incentives.

The state vouchers are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, creating stiff competition for funding. During the funding cycle that began on Sept. 9, for example, there was about $335.6 million available. Within two days, 68% of that amount had already been allotted.

The program’s structure has enabled some companies to quickly capture a large portion of funding, over 1,000 vouchers in some cases, without having the inventory or production capacity to deliver those vehicles in a timely fashion. It also left their competitors unable to provide similar discounts.

For years, a single manufacturer generally was allowed to secure a maximum of only 100 state vouchers at a time, until it delivered those orders to customers. That rule was designed to prevent any entity from monopolizing state funds for vehicles that weren’t ready for production and to provide a level playing field for smaller manufacturers.

Advertisement

A CARB spokesperson acknowledged that the state program ended the 100-voucher limit because the policy unintentionally prevented customers from buying some of the most popular trucks and buses on the market. The state had also regularly granted waivers for customers to bypass the voucher limit for popular vehicle brands.

“The original intent of the manufacturer cap was to ensure [manufacturers] were not holding vouchers for an extended time,” a CARB spokesperson said. “Instead, it had the unintended consequence of limiting zero-emission vehicle choices for fleets.”

But, without those limits, large manufacturers, including Tesla, have been able to dominate the voucher program. The policy change has intensified competition in the state voucher program at a time when the EV market has entered its most uncertain period in recent memory.

The Trump administration has eliminated federal tax credits for EVs and invalidated California’s zero-emission vehicle targets. As a result, California is losing traction in its quest to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gases from the state’s robust shipping sector.

The medium- and heavy-duty segment, in particular, had already greatly consolidated as automakers have struggled to electrify — and monetize — delivery vans, buses and big rigs in the U.S.

Advertisement

California’s voucher program had provided electric truck and bus manufacturers with a lifeline. But Tesla’s expansion into the heavy-duty market has become a flash point, triggering calls for reforms to how incentives are distributed.

Paragon or prototype?

Ironically, Tesla CEO and former DOGE chief Elon Musk had publicly advocated against government incentives for EVs, boasting that eliminating these subsidies would bolster Tesla’s standing in the industry.

Meanwhile, Tesla has worked to secure millions in state and local funding for its Semi, while many in the trucking industry question whether the vehicle’s uneven development timeline justifies such heavy public investment.

In November 2017, Musk unveiled the Tesla Semi prototype at a SpaceX facility in Hawthorne. He touted it as a revolutionary all-electric truck that would help phase out diesel-powered models and reduce emissions from the nation’s shipping industry. Musk said it would deliver 500-mile range at maximum, a 0–60 mph acceleration in 20 seconds and 30-minute charging via solar-powered “Megachargers.”

Production was initially scheduled to begin in 2019 in Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada.

Advertisement

But, since then, early customers, such as food and beverage giant PepsiCo, have waited years for their orders to be fulfilled amid a series of manufacturing delays.

It’s unclear how many Tesla Semi models have been sold. According to state data, Tesla has received payment from CARB’s voucher program for only five Semi models thus far, all of which were delivered last July to Nevoya Transportation LLC.

State officials said they expect many of the Tesla orders will be fulfilled in late 2026, based on conversations they’ve had with Tesla representatives.

But there are still serious questions about its performance and design.

As the Tesla Semi was tested at the Port of Long Beach last year, a major design flaw became apparent. The big rig has a panoramic, wraparound windshield providing exceptional visibility and a futuristic appearance.

Advertisement

But it was clear that drivers were unable to roll down the window to present the necessary paperwork at the gated entry.

For skeptics, it was yet another sign the truck is still not ready for the road.

Business

How Iran War Is Threatening Global Oil and Gas Supplies

Published

on

How Iran War Is Threatening Global Oil and Gas Supplies

Ships near the Strait of Hormuz before and after attacks began

Advertisement

Note: Times shown are in Iran Standard Time. Some ships in the region transmit false positions and others sometimes stop broadcasting their locations, and may not be reflected in the animation. Ships with sparse location data are shown in a lighter shade. Source: Kpler and Spire.

Every day, around 80 oil and gas tankers typically pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway off Iran’s southern coast that carries a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant amount of natural gas.

Advertisement

On Monday, just two oil and gas tankers appear to have crossed the strait, according to a New York Times analysis of shipping activity from Kpler, an industry data firm. Since then, one tanker passed through.

“It’s a de facto closure,” said Dan Pickering, chief investment officer of Pickering Energy Partners, a Houston financial services firm. “You’ve got a significant number of vessels on either side of the strait but no one is willing to go through.”

Advertisement

Tankers have been staying away from Hormuz since the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran that began on Saturday. A prolonged conflict could ripple broadly across the global economy, threatening the energy supplies of countries halfway around the world and stoking inflation.

International oil prices have climbed 12 percent since the fighting began, trading Tuesday around $81 a barrel, and natural gas prices have surged in Europe and in Asia.

A senior Iranian military official threatened on Monday to “set on fire” any ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. Vessels in the region have already come under attack. Several oil and gas facilities have also been struck or affected by nearby shelling, though the damage did not initially appear to be catastrophic.

Advertisement

Where ships and energy facilities have been damaged

Advertisement

Note: Damage as of 2 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday. Source: Kpler, Kuwait National Petroleum Company, Saudi Arabian Ministry of Energy, Planet Labs, QatarEnergy, United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations and Vanguard Tech.

Advertisement

A fire broke out Tuesday at a major energy hub in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, from the falling debris of a downed drone, the authorities said. On Monday, Qatar halted production of liquefied natural gas, or fuel that has been cooled so that it can be transported on ships, after attacks on its facilities.

Advertisement

Facilities at Ras Tanura oil refinery in Saudi Arabia were on fire on Monday after two Iranian drones were intercepted, according to Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy, causing fragments to fall. Vantor

The sharp reduction in tanker traffic is reducing the supply of oil and gas to world markets, pushing up prices for both commodities. And the longer that ships stay away from the Strait of Hormuz, the less oil and gas get out to the world, which could raise prices even more.

Shipping companies have paused their tankers to protect their crew and cargo, and because insurance companies are charging significantly more to cover vessels in the conflict area.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, President Trump said that “if necessary,” the U.S. Navy would begin escorting tankers through the strait. He also said a U.S. government agency would begin offering “political risk insurance” to shipping lines in the area.

In addition to tankers, other large vessels regularly go through the strait, including car carriers and container ships. In normal conditions, nearly 160 make the trip each day.

Advertisement

Some ships in the region turn off the devices that broadcast their positions, while others transmit false locations — making it hard to give a full picture of the traffic in the strait.

The Shiva is a small oil tanker that has repeatedly faked its location, according to TankerTrackers.com, which tracks global oil shipments. It is suspected of carrying sanctioned Iranian oil, according to Kpler. The Shiva was one of the two tankers that crossed the strait on Monday.

The oil and gas that typically move through the strait come from big producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and United Arab Emirates, and are exported around the world.

Advertisement

Where tankers moving through the Strait have traveled

Advertisement

Note: Tanker paths are since Jan. 1 and include all tankers and gas carriers. Source: Kpler and Spire.

In 2024, more than 80 percent of the oil and gas transported through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asia. China, India, Japan and South Korea were the top importers, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Advertisement

Countries have energy stockpiles that could last them into the coming months, but a continued shutdown of the strait could damage their economies.

Several big disruptions have roiled supply chains in recent years, but the tanker standstill in the Strait of Hormuz could have an outsize impact.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Paramount credit downgraded to ‘junk’ status over debt worries

Published

on

Paramount credit downgraded to ‘junk’ status over debt worries

Paramount Skydance’s jubilation over its come-from-behind victory to claim Warner Bros. Discovery has entered a new phase:

Call it the deal-debt hangover.

Two major ratings agencies have raised concerns about Paramount’s credit because of the enormous debt the David Ellison-led company will have to shoulder — at least $79 billion — once it absorbs the larger Warner Bros. Discovery, bringing CNN, HBO, TBS and Cartoon Network into the Paramount fold.

Fitch Ratings said Monday that it placed Paramount on its “negative” ratings watch, and downgraded its credit to BB+ from BBB-, which puts the company’s credit into “junk” territory. Fitch said it took action due to “uncertainty” surrounding Paramount’s $110-billion deal for Warner Bros. Discovery, which the boards of both companies approved on Friday.

S&P Global Ratings took similar action.

Advertisement

To finance the Warner takeover, Ellison’s billionaire father, Larry Ellison, has agreed to guarantee the $45.7 billion in equity needed. Bank of America, Citibank and Apollo Global have agreed to provide Paramount with more than $54 billion in debt financing.

“Potential credit risks include the prospective debt-funded structure, Fitch’s expectation of materially elevated leverage and limited visibility on post-transaction financial policy and capital structure,” Fitch said.

Late last week, Paramount sent $2.8 billion to Netflix as a “termination fee” to officially end the streaming giant’s pursuit of Warner Bros. That payment paved the way for Warner and Paramount’s board to enter into the new merger agreement.

Paramount hopes the merger will be wrapped up by the end of September. It needs the approval of Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders and regulators, including the European Union.

Paramount executives acknowledged this week the new company would emerge with $79 billion in debt — a considerably higher total than what Warner Bros. Discovery had following its spinoff from AT&T. That 2022 transaction left Warner Bros. Discovery with nearly $55 billion of debt, a burden that led to endless waves of cost-cutting, including thousands of layoffs and dozens of canceled projects.

Advertisement

Warner still has $33.5 billion in debt, a lingering legacy that will be passed on to Paramount.

Paramount plans to restructure about $15 billion in Warner Bros. Discovery’s existing debt.

Paramount CEO David Ellison at a 2024 movie premiere for a Netflix show.

(Evan Agostini / Invision / AP)

Advertisement

Paramount told Wall Street it would find more than $6 billion in cost cuts or “synergies” within three years — a number that has weighed heavily on entertainment industry workers, particularly in Los Angeles.

Hollywood already is reeling from previous mergers in addition to a sharp pullback in film and television production locally as filmmakers chase tax credits offered overseas and in other states, including New York and New Jersey.

Some entertainment executives, including Netflix Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos, have speculated that Paramount will need to find more than $10 billion in cost cuts to make the math work. More recently, Sarandos went higher, telling Bloomberg News that Paramount may need $16 billion in cuts.

Cognizant of widespread fears about additional layoffs, Paramount Chief Operating Officer Andrew Gordon took steps this week to try to tamp down such concerns.

Gordon is a former Goldman Sachs banker and a former executive with RedBird Capital Partners, an investor in Paramount and the proposed Warner Bros. deal. He joined Paramount last August as part of the Ellison takeover.

Advertisement

During a conference call Monday with analysts, Gordon said Paramount would look beyond the workforce for cuts because the company wants to maintain its film and TV production levels.

Paramount plans to look for cost savings by consolidating the “technology stacks and cloud providers” for its streaming services, including Paramount+ and HBO Max, Gordon said. The company also would search for reductions in corporate overhead, marketing expenses, procurement, business services and “optimizing the combined real estate footprint.”

It’s unclear whether Paramount would sell the historic Melrose Avenue lot or simply centralize the sprawling operations onto the Warner Bros. and Paramount lots in Burbank and Hollywood.

Workers are scattered throughout the region.

HBO, owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, maintains its West Coast headquarters in Culver City; CBS television stations operate from CBS’ former lot off Radford Avenue in Studio City; and CBS Entertainment and Paramount cable channels executive teams are located in a high-rise off Gower Street and Sunset Boulevard, blocks from the Paramount movie studio lot.

Advertisement

“The combination of PSKY and WBD could create a materially stronger business than either individual entity,” Standard & Poor’s said in its note to investors. “However, this transaction presents unique challenges because it would involve the combination of three companies, with the smallest, Skydance, being the controlling entity.”

David Ellison’s production firm, Skydance Media, was the entity that bought Paramount, creating Paramount Skydance.

Ellison has not announced what the combined company will be called.

Paramount shares closed down more than 6% Tuesday to $12.45.

Warner Bros. Discovery fell 1% to $28.20. Netflix added less than 1% to close at $97.70.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

Published

on

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

So much Trump-related news has appeared lately on the airwaves and in web pixels — what with Iran and Epstein and Minnesota and so on — that inevitably a nugget will fall between the cracks.

That seems to have been the fate of the most recent annual financial report of Trump Media and Technology Group, which covered calendar year 2025 and was issued Friday.

Trump Media, which is 52% owned by Donald Trump and trades on Nasdaq with a ticker symbol based on his initials (DJT), is the holding company for Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

The value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.

— A risk factor disclosed by Trump Media

Advertisement

The annual financial disclosure has garnered minimal press coverage. That’s a pity, because it makes fascinating reading, though not in a good way.

Here are the top and bottom lines from the 10-k annual report: Trump Media lost $712.1 million last year on revenue of about $3.7 million. That’s quite a bit worse than its performance in 2024, when it lost $409 million on revenue of about $3.6 million. The company attributed most of the flood of red ink to “loss from investments,” of which more in a moment.

Truth Social isn’t an especially strong keystone of this operation. The platform is chiefly an outlet for Trump’s social media ramblings and the occasional official White House statements. But no one has to sign in to Truth Social to see them — they’re almost invariably picked up by the news media or reposted by users on other platforms such as X.

That might explain Truth Social’s relatively scrawny user base. The platform is estimated to have about 2 million active users, according to the analytical firm Search Logistics. By comparison, X has about 450 million monthly active users and Facebook has more than 2.9 billion.

Advertisement

It’s no mystery, then, why TMTG disdains “traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users,” according to its annual report.

Relying on those metrics, which are used to judge TMTG’s social media rivals, “might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its stockholders, as it could lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term innovation and value creation.”

Instead, the company says it should be evaluated based on “its commitment to a robust business plan that includes introducing innovative features, new products, new technologies.” But it also acknowledges that, at its heart, TMTG is a proxy for “the reputation and popularity of President Donald J. Trump.” The company warns that “the value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.”

How has that played out in real time? Trump Media notched its highest closing price as a public company, $66.22, on March 27, 2024, the day after its initial public offering. In midday trading Monday, the shares were quoted at $11.08, for a loss of 83% since the IPO.

One can’t quibble with stock market price quotes; nor can one finagle annual profit and loss statements, at least not without receiving questions, and perhaps lawsuit complaints, from attentive investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Advertisement

In recent months, TMTG has engaged in a number of baroque financial transactions.

In May, the company announced that it was planning to raise $3.5 billion from institutions to invest in bitcoin, with the money to come from issues of common and preferred shares. The goal was to climb onto the cryptocurrency train, which Trump himself was fueling by, among other things, issuing an executive order promoting the expansion of crypto in the U.S. and denigrating enforcement efforts by the Biden administration as reflecting a “war on cryptocurrency.”

Under Trump, federal regulators have dropped numerous investigations related to cryptocurrencies. Trump has also talked about creating a government crypto strategic reserve, which would entail large government purchases of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies; a March 3 announcement on that subject briefly sent bitcoin prices soaring by nearly 20%, though they promptly fell back.

Then there’s TMTG’s relationship with Crypto.com, a Singapore-based crypto “service provider” best known to Angelenos unfamiliar with the crypto world as the firm with naming rights to the Los Angeles arena that hosts the NBA Lakers and Clippers, WNBA Sparks and NHL Kings.

In August, Crypto.com and TMTG announced a deal in which TMTG would pursue a crypto treasury strategy consisting mostly of Cronos tokens, a cryptocurrency sponsored by Crypto.com. The initial infusion would consist of 6.4 billion Cronos valued at $1 billion, or about 15.8 cents per Cronos.

Advertisement

As of Dec. 31, TMTG said in its 10-K, it owned 756.1 million Cronos, acquired at a cost of about $114 million, or 15 cents each. By year’s end, they were worth only about nine cents each, for a paper loss of about $46 million. In trading this week, Cronos was quoted at about 7.6 cents, producing a paper loss for TMTG of about $56.5 million, or roughly half the investment.

The financial maneuvering involved in this trade is a little dizzying. The initial transaction was a 50% stock, 50% cash trade in which Crypto.com bought $50 million in TMTG stock and TMTG bought $105 million in Cronos. Who gained in this deal? It’s almost impossible to say.

Crypto.com did gain, if not purely in cash, then arguably through the Trump administration’s good graces.

On March 27, the SEC formally closed an investigation of the company that it had launched during the Biden administration, when the agency was headed by a known crypto skeptic, Gary Gensler. Trump appointed a crypto-friendly regulator, Paul Atkins, as Gensler’s successor.

It’s reasonable to note that as a business model, crypto treasuries have been in vogue over the last year or so, allowing investors to play the crypto market without all the complexities of actually buying and holding the digital assets by buying shares in treasury companies.

Advertisement

I asked Crypto.com whether the steady decline in Cronos’ price suggested that the hookup with TMTG wasn’t bearing fruit. “The fluctuation in value during this time period is consistent with the entire crypto market, which is typical in a bear market,” company spokeswoman Victoria Davis told me by email.

Davis also asserted that the SEC’s investigation of the company had been closed by Gensler, “not the current administration” (i.e., Trump). That’s misleading, at best. Gensler put the investigation on hold after the 2024 election, when it became clear that Trump was going to be in charge.

Crypto.com’s March 27 announcement of the formal end of the case attributed the action to “the current SEC leadership” and blamed the case on “the previous administration.” I asked Davis to explain the discrepancy but got no reply.

TMTG, like Crypto.com, attributed the decline in Cronos’ value to the secular bear market raging in the entire cryptocurrency space, a reflection of “temporary price swings across the crypto market,” said TMTG spokeswoman Shannon Devine. She said the price decline “will not diminish our enthusiasm for the enormous potential of the [CRONOS] ecosystem.”

Trump’s coziness with crypto companies hasn’t gone unnoticed by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who issued a scathing report on the topic in November. (The White House scoffed at the report, saying in response to the report that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”)

Advertisement

In mid-December, TMTG launched yet another remaking — this time, plunging into the business of fusion power. The instrument is TAE Technologies, a Foothill Ranch-based company working to develop the technology of nuclear fusion as a clean energy source. According to a Dec. 18 announcement, TMTG and TAE will merge, creating what they say is a $6-billion company.

According to the announcement, TMTG will contribute $200 million to the merged company when the deal closes in mid-2026, and an additional $100 million subsequently. Following the merger, TMTG said last month, it will consider spinning off Truth Social into a new publicly traded company.

These arrangements are murky. TAE is privately held and the value of Truth Social is conjectural at best, so TMTG shareholders could be hard-pressed to assess their gains or losses from the merger and spin-off.

What makes them even murkier is the speculative nature of fusion as an electrical power source. Although numerous companies have leaped into the field — and TAE, which has been backed by Alphabet, the parent of Google, is among the oldest — none has shown the capability of generating electrical power at commercial scale with the elusive technology.

Although some researchers say that fusion could become a technically and economically feasible power source within 10 years, only in 2022 did fusion researchers (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) achieve the goal of using fusion to produce more energy than is required to sustain a reaction. They were able to do so only for less than a billionth of a second.

Advertisement

Others working on the technology have expressed doubts that fusion could become a viable power source before the 2040s. The technical challenges, including how to convert the energy produced by a fusion reactor into electricity, remain daunting.

All this points to the fundamental question of what TMTG is supposed to be. TMTG’s original mission, according to its own publicity statements, was to build Truth Social into an alternative social media platform “to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet.”

Spinning off Truth Social would place that goal on the side. TMTG is on its way too becoming a hodgepodge of crypto, fusion and other investments selected without regard to whether they fit together or are even achievable. The only constant is Trump himself.

If you want to invest in him, TMTG may be the best way to do it. But judging from its latest financial disclosure, that’s not the same as being a good way to do it.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending