Connect with us

Business

Elon Musk says he's moving SpaceX and X headquarters from California to Texas

Published

on

Elon Musk says he's moving SpaceX and X headquarters from California to Texas

Elon Musk said Tuesday on X that he is moving the headquarters of both SpaceX and the social media platform formerly known as Twitter to Texas — citing several criticisms he has of California and doing business in San Francisco.

Pointing to a new state law that bans teachers from telling families about student gender identity changes, Musk tweeted that he is moving the headquarters of SpaceX from Hawthorne to the company’s launch test site in Texas.

The move would be a blow to Southern California, where SpaceX has helped to anchor a burgeoning space economy.

“This is the final straw,” Musk posted shortly after noon. “Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas.”

Advertisement

The law the SpaceX founder cited was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday after a contentious battle between conservative school boards concerned about parental rights and LGBTQ+ activists worried about vulnerable youths.

Later Tuesday, Newsom retweeted an older Donald Trump post on X about Musk with the comment: “You bent the knee.”

Trump’s tweet talked about how Musk came to the White House seeking help for all his “subsidized projects, whether it’s electric cars that don’t drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocketships to nowhere… I could have said, ‘drop to your knees and beg,’ and he would have done it.”

Shortly after his post about moving SpaceX, Musk posted that he would also move X, formerly known as Twitter, from San Francisco to Austin, saying that he has “had enough of dodging gangs of violent drug addicts just to get in and out of the building.”

Since acquiring Twitter in 2022 in a $44-billion deal, Musk has made sweeping and controversial changes to the social media site, firing top executives and laying off thousands of employees.

Advertisement

The announcement is the latest salvo in Musk’s long-running feud with California and comes nearly three years after he announced the move of Tesla’s headquarters to Austin from Palo Alto, citing the high cost of housing and long commutes for employees. The electric vehicle company maintains a manufacturing operation in Fremont.

It comes amid the highly charged presidential campaign during which the libertarian Musk has increasingly moved to the right. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the billionaire plans to give $45 million a month to a new pro-Trump super PAC called America PAC.

Musk has an estimated net worth of $254 billion, making him the world’s wealthiest person, according to Forbes. His announcements drew immediate applause from Republicans. GOP Texas Sen. Ted Cruz posted: “Let freedom ring!”

California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, who voted against the parental notification law, issued a statement that “Gavin Newsom’s anti-parent agenda isn’t just bad for families — now it’s doing serious damage to California’s economy.”

Musk also drew a comment from the other side of the political spectrum, with Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco, posting that Musk hugely benefited from California subsidies. “Will this be a fake temper tantrum move just like Tesla’s fake ‘move’ to Texas?”

Advertisement

In an interview, Wiener said, “I’m not confident that whatever he’s going to do has anything to do with a law that we passed to protect the safety of trans kids.” He added, “He has a history of saying one thing and it not being true.”

Newsom declined to comment on Musk’s announcements.

Musk, who announced in 2020 that he had moved from Los Angeles to Texas, has previously complained about crime in San Francisco. Last year, he said in a post that a friend had experienced two shootings outside his apartment in the city, with a bullet going through his wall.

In posting he would move SpaceX’s headquarters, it was unclear whether Musk was referring just to the company’s executive offices or also production and other employees.

Founded in 2002, SpaceX has deep ties to Los Angeles. In 2007, it moved into a former Northrop Corp. facility off Crenshaw Boulevard that it rapidly expanded last decade.

Advertisement

The sprawling Hawthorne campus is the location of the company’s mission control center and employs thousands of workers who design and build the company’s spacecraft, including the workhorse Falcon 9. SpaceX’s Dragon capsule, made to service the International Space Station, also was built there under a $2.6-billion contract with NASA.

Other facilities in Southern California include one at Vandenberg Space Force Base near Lompoc, where it wants to expand operations. SpaceX is seeking approval to launch 90 rockets from the Santa Barbara County launch site by 2026.

The company also conducts rocket launches in Florida and from Starbase, a site in Boca Chica, Texas, off the Gulf of Mexico. That is where it is building and has launched its massive Starship rocket, which SpaceX intends to send to the moon.

SpaceX has recently suffered some setbacks.

Last week, the Federal Aviation Administration grounded the company’s Falcon 9 rocket after its second stage failed to boost a payload of the company’s Starlink internet satellites into orbit during an uncrewed mission.

Advertisement

And last month, SpaceX and Musk were sued by eight former employees who allege that they were fired after asking the company to address a toxic work culture they say is rife with sexual harassment and discrimination. The company has declined to respond to the claims.

Last year, the Justice Department sued the company, alleging that it discriminated against employees and refugees by discouraging them from applying for jobs and by refusing to consider or hire them because of their citizenship status.

Times staff writer Caroline Petrow-Cohen contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Business

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

Published

on

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.

The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.

The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.

“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”

Advertisement

Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.

It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.

Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.

“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.

Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.

Advertisement

“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”

Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.

In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.

In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.

Advertisement

A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”

“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.

Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.

L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.

Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.

Advertisement

Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.

“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”

The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.

“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.

Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.

Advertisement

Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.

Continue Reading

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending