Connect with us

Business

Inside the Controversy Surrounding Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Remake

Published

on

Inside the Controversy Surrounding Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Remake

Disney knew that remaking “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” as a live-action musical would be treacherous.

But the studio was feeling cocky.

It was 2019, and Disney was minting money at the box office by “reimagining” animated classics like “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Jungle Book” as movies with real actors. The remakes also made bedrock characters like Cinderella newly relevant. Heroines defined by ideas from another era — be pretty, and things might work out! — were empowered. Casting emphasized diversity.

Why not tackle Snow White?

Over the decades, Disney had tried to modernize her story — to make her more than a damsel in distress, one prized as “the fairest of them all” because of her “white as snow” skin. Twice, starting in the early 2000s, screenwriters had been unable to crack it, at least not to the satisfaction of an image-conscious Disney.

Advertisement

“Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” which premiered in 1937, posed other remake challenges, including how to sensitively handle Happy, Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Bashful, Grumpy and Doc. (One stalled Disney reboot had reimagined the dwarfs as kung fu fighters in China.)

Still, Disney executives were determined to figure it out. They had some new ideas. More important, the remake gravy train needed to keep running.

“It’s going to be amazing, another big win,” Bob Chapek, then Disney’s chief executive, said of a live-action “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” at a 2022 fan convention.

Instead, “Snow White,” starring Rachel Zegler, arrives in theaters on Friday as one of the most troubled projects in Disney’s 102-year history. The movie became a cautionary tale about relevance — how trying to strike the right cultural chord at the right cultural moment can turn a seemingly innocuous movie into a proxy battle for special interests. And just about everything that could go wrong did, resulting in a case study of the perils of big-budget moviemaking in a volatile, fast-moving world and the risks of trying to endlessly mine existing intellectual property.

For Disney and Hollywood as a whole, this weekend will be a test: How much does prerelease Sturm und Drang even matter these days? Will family ticket buyers steer clear? Or will they ignore the negative chatter and trust a vaunted entertainment brand to provide a little escapist fun?

Advertisement

This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people involved with the film. Together, their accounts show how “Snow White” went from promising idea to poisoned apple, and how the entertainment giant and the film’s creative team scrambled to save it.

Some “Snow White” challenges amounted to bad luck. Pandemic Covid cases flared up just as production got underway in London, forcing Disney to adopt stringent safety protocols and adding millions of dollars to the budget. One of the sets, a cottage with a thatched roof, caught fire on a soundstage. The 2023 actors’ strike forced Disney to halt reshoots. Gal Gadot, cast as the Evil Queen, suffered health complications from a pregnancy, delaying reshoots and visual-effects work.

Other problems were self-inflicted. Disney flubbed its response to leaked on-set photos of new characters (a troop of seven woodland inhabitants known as bandits) that appear in the new film alongside the seven dwarfs, but that led fans to worry the dwarfs had been expunged entirely for political correctness. And Ms. Zegler went rogue in interviews and on social media, sparking one controversy after another.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to the movie was the cultural shift that has taken place over the past several years.

In 2021, online trolls attacked Disney for casting Ms. Zegler, a Latina actress, as Snow White. “Snow Woke” briefly trended. But the pushback dissipated, and Disney shrugged it off. Inside the studio, executives were proud of the casting. They had been wowed by Ms. Zegler’s voice and screen presence. They saw her ethnicity as a bonus. The killing of George Floyd a year earlier by a police officer had roiled every sphere of American life, prompting institutions and individuals around the country to confront racism and inequity. In Hollywood in general and Disney in particular, “We must do better” rang in every hallway.

Advertisement

As “Snow White” finally comes to market, however, Disney finds itself in a very different climate. Companies, including Disney, have raced to distance themselves from diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives amid a broader backlash toward D.E.I. policies by President Trump. What had been a positive — a Latina in a role associated with whiteness (it’s in the title) — became a potential liability, with right-wing agitators (many of them adult men unlikely to see the film to begin with) hammering Disney and Ms. Zegler.

Some news outlets followed suit. The New York Post alone has published 20 articles about “Snow White” over the last week. “Grumpy, Dopey and Woke — Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Disaster” was the headline on one.

The tumult around “Snow White” had grown so intense by the movie’s premiere in Los Angeles last weekend that Disney heightened security and curtailed red carpet interviews. The entrance to the theater was hidden from public view by tall hedges on movable platforms. (The eagerness to see “Snow White” fall on its face was such that some online haters began insisting, incorrectly, that the premiere had been canceled.)

After the screening, a few Disney executives and people who worked on the film stood in the lobby searching people’s faces for responses and hoping for a last-minute plot twist — that reviews would be positive and their work to keep “Snow White” on track would pay off with strong ticket sales. Maybe, in the end, the movie would not go down in the Hollywood history books as a cautionary tale. Maybe I.P. really can be reimagined for every generation, just as every studio executive loves to dream.

“Our job is to delight,” Marc Platt, the film’s lead producer, said to The New York Times after the premiere. “I’m hopeful that once audiences actually experience the film, all the noise around it will fade away and people will discover a family entertainment that is joyful, aspirational and delightful.”

Advertisement

As the first feature-length, fully narrative animated film, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” defined a new art form. It contributed “Heigh-Ho,” “Whistle While You Work” and “Someday My Prince Will Come” to the Great American Songbook.

The movie cost about $1.5 million to make (about $34 million today) and collected $184 million (roughly $4 billion) in the United States and Canada. Walt Disney bought the land for Disney headquarters with part of the profit. To this day, Disney leaders work in a building adorned with monumental statues of the seven dwarfs. Disney Animation offices sit nearby, along Dopey Drive.

Any effort to remake the movie would carry extra weight.

Knowing this, Disney movie executives lined up an A-plus creative team. In the producer’s chair would be Mr. Platt, now a four-time Oscar nominee for “Wicked,” “La La Land,” “Bridge of Spies” and “The Trial of the Chicago 7.” Marc Webb, who had experience with big-budget blockbusters, including two “Spider-Man” movies, came aboard as director. Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, the EGOT-winning songwriting partners (“Dear Evan Hansen,” “The Greatest Showman”), would contribute new tunes.

Ms. Zegler was winning raves for playing Maria in Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” Ms. Gadot was literally “Wonder Woman.”

Advertisement

The production would be colossal, sprawling across 10 soundstages in suburban London. Eight visual-effects companies in three countries would digitally create the dwarfs, the magic mirror and a multitude of cutesy animals (owls, bunnies, birds, turtles, squirrels). For the deer, puppeteers would be employed.

Most important, the screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson (“The Girl on the Train”) had collaborated with Mr. Pasek and Mr. Paul to modernize the story. Snow White, now named after a wintry storm, was no longer a naïve princess defined by her looks; she was a leader in training, someone the Evil Queen despised because she was beautiful, yes, but also because she prized fairness as a leadership quality. The prince was dropped; that love interest became a Robin Hood-esque scofflaw. And the dwarfs, especially Dopey, were given character arcs of their own — more emotional depth, less bumbling physical comedy.

Greta Gerwig (“Barbie”) and five other writers did polishes. Satisfied by their work, Alan F. Horn, then chairman of Walt Disney Studios, pushed the project forward with a budget of $210 million.

From the beginning, Disney knew the seven dwarfs could become a public-relations nightmare. Disney fans delight in them. The dwarfism community, however, tends to view the characters as infantilizing, dehumanizing and hurtful.

The studio hired three dwarfs as consultants to help navigate potential pitfalls.

Advertisement

The first real blowback came in January 2022 when the actor Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) criticized Disney for remaking “Snow White” during an appearance on Marc Maron’s “WTF” podcast. “I was a little taken aback when they were proud to cast a Latina actress as Snow White,” Mr. Dinklage said. “You’re progressive in one way, and you’re still making that backwards story about seven dwarfs living in a cave? Have I done nothing to advance the cause from my soapbox?”

Disney swiftly put out a statement: “To avoid reinforcing stereotypes from the original animated film, we are taking a different approach with these seven characters and have been consulting with members of the dwarfism community.”

Because Disney did not explain its “different approach,” however, damaging theories began to wash across the internet. Had the studio decided to do away with the dwarfs? After all, they had disappeared from the title of the film.

Then an on-set photo leak turned what had been an online brush fire into an inferno. In July 2023, The Daily Mail published images that appeared to show the seven dwarfs being played by actors and actresses of various races and ethnicities; only one of them was a dwarf. The headline was “Snow White and the Seven … Politically-Correct Companions?”

At first, a Disney publicist said the photo was fake. The company then reversed itself. But Disney, worried about spoilers, did not provide a crucial piece of information: Those weren’t the dwarfs. This movie would feature two groups of seven — a troop of bandits (depicted in the photo) and a separate troop of C.G.I. dwarfs, to be added in postproduction.

Advertisement

As the initial March 2024 release date moved back — Disney was underwhelmed by the first cut and ordered reshoots — the studio found itself playing Whac-a-Mole with one dwarf controversy after another. When it finally emerged that Disney had opted to use C.G.I. to render Doc, Sleepy, Bashful and the gang, the company came under attack for the “erasure” of people with dwarfism.

Others criticized Disney for denying them jobs. “I was born to play Dopey,” Matt McCarthy, an actor with dwarfism, told reporters on Monday as he and his wife, an actress with dwarfism, planned a protest outside Disney headquarters in Burbank, Calif. “When you’re a little person, opportunities are few and far between,” he said.

On Aug. 9, 2024, Disney’s marketing campaign for “Snow White” kicked into a higher gear with the release of a teaser trailer. It did not go well.

Some people criticized the dwarves. Others mocked Ms. Zegler’s wig, likening her helmet hair look to Lord Farquaad from “Shrek.” Many simply questioned the wisdom of remaking the 1937 original. (As of Wednesday, roughly 102,000 people had clicked “like” on the trailer on YouTube, while 1.5 million had clicked “dislike.”)

But the real headache came a few days later when Ms. Zegler shared the trailer on X and added, “And always remember, free Palestine.” In an instant, “Snow White” became part of a highly divisive global political conversation — the opposite of what Disney wanted. Ms. Zegler’s comment also caused a severe rift with Ms. Gadot, who is Israeli. (Both actresses declined to comment for this article.)

Advertisement

Hollywood’s studio system days are long gone. Stars are free to express themselves as they wish. All studios can do is beg: Please, pretty please, stay on message. (Ms. Zegler had already angered fans of the original movie. “People are making these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White,” she said in 2022. “Yeah, it is — because it needed that.”)

The best containment strategy, Disney decided, was silence. Asking Ms. Zegler to take her post down could generate more attention — especially if she told her followers that she had been pressured to do so. But Mr. Platt flew to New York from Los Angeles to have a heart-to-heart with Ms. Zegler. He explained how much was at stake, both for Disney and for her career, and asked her to post heedfully.

She seemed to understand.

In November, however, Ms. Zegler took to Instagram to sound off about the presidential election. In a post salted with expletives, she harshly criticized Mr. Trump and those who had voted for him.

It had only been a short time since Disney had tried to turn a corner with MAGA followers by ending a spat with the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, over Disney World. A new skirmish could threaten the détente.

Advertisement

Within seconds of Ms. Zegler’s Instagram post, screenshots of the screed pinged between phones at Disney headquarters. How could the studio possibly trust her to participate in the coming “Snow White” publicity tour?

This time, members of Ms. Zegler’s management team, including agents at Creative Artists Agency, sprang into action. Her post was quickly replaced with an apology. “I let my emotions get the best of me,” she said. “I’m sorry I contributed to the negative discourse.”

But it was too late. Ms. Zegler, “Snow White” and Disney had already been in the cross hairs of right-wing pundits. Now, it was open season.

Megyn Kelly called for Ms. Zegler’s replacement in the film. An anti-D.E.I. agitator, Robbie Starbuck, went on the attack. Elon Musk weighed in with a post that skewered Disney for race-swapping iconic characters.

Ms. Zegler’s fans rallied around her. “So overjoyed knowing that little Latinas will be able to see themselves as such an iconic Disney princess,” one commented on Ms. Zegler’s Instagram page.

Advertisement

Disney hoped that prominent voices on the left would step up to deliver a pushback to the pushback. But it didn’t happen.

“Really never, but especially right now, no studio wants its movie branded as a D.E.I. lesson,” said Martin Kaplan, who runs the Norman Lear Center for entertainment, media and society at the University of Southern California.

Disney largely managed to avoid this critique as recently as 2023, when it remade “The Little Mermaid” with a Black actress in the title role; defenders were plentiful. But last month, when Disney released “Captain America: Brave New World,” with a Black actor in the title role for the first time, the company had a harder time.

It’s not an entirely new phenomenon: Think of the male-Internet uproar over the all-female “Ghostbusters” from 2016, or the ongoing fan vitriol around Disney’s efforts to bring diversity to the “Star Wars” franchise. But the “anti-woke right” has grown more powerful, Mr. Kaplan noted, while defenders on the left have grown quieter, either because they feel cowed or frustrated or because even they have come to see Hollywood’s aggressive diversity efforts as clumsy.

“I’m not sure anyone could have predicted that a reactionary force could so quickly and dramatically reverse the cultural winds, but that is certainly what has happened,” Mr. Kaplan said. “What once were uncontroversial or proud decisions are suddenly somehow un-American.”

Advertisement

As “Snow White” bounced from one controversy to the next, the Hollywood gossip mill kicked into high gear: Surely, Disney would cut its losses and send this beast straight to streaming.

But sweeping “Snow White” under the rug (as the company had done with other problem movies, including the critically reviled “Artemis Fowl” in 2020) was never something that Disney considered. The budget for “Snow White” had risen to $270 million, not including marketing. Disney+ would need to absorb that cost (minus tax incentives) if it took the film. And that would undercut one of Disney’s key promises to Wall Street: greater streaming profitability.

Disney also knew something the outside world did not: After the reshoots (“additional photography” in studio parlance) and extensive visual-effects work, the movie was starting to jell.

A second-act song called “Hidden in My Heart,” a tear-jerker sung by one of the dwarfs, had been cut to speed the story along. A new scene near the finale involving the Evil Queen and magic mirror had added spectacle. That troublesome wig had undergone digital fixes.

Was it possible that “Snow White” was becoming … a decent movie? At least one that would entertain the Disney faithful?

Advertisement

In October, executives from across the company had been scheduled to fly to Disney World in Florida for a corporate retreat. When the summit was called off at the last minute because of Hurricane Milton, the studio team used the time to focus on “Snow White.” Disney’s new live-action film chief, David Greenbaum, who had inherited the troubled project, gathered a dozen studio leaders in a screening room on the Disney lot and spent two days scrutinizing the movie — stopping it, starting it — to see what could be improved, according to three people with direct knowledge of the session, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private process.

The C.G.I. dwarfs looked “waxy,” Mr. Greenbaum worried. They could also be better integrated with live-action woodland footage shot on location. What trims could be made? The bandit story line, it seemed, could be tightened by a lot.

Mr. Webb, the director, kept tinkering with sound and color until February.

On Tuesday, Mr. Webb was in an upbeat mood. Reactions from people invited to the premiere had been positive. He positioned his “Snow White” as a throwback to a simpler time.

“Now that people are seeing the movie, I think they’re surprised and warmed by how nostalgic it is,” he said in a phone interview. “This movie is nostalgic not just in its aesthetic but in its worldview. It’s wholesome and kind, and that’s what I’ve held sort of dear through this whole process.”

Advertisement

Reviews arrived on Wednesday. Critics praised Ms. Zegler’s performance, but were underwhelmed by the film as a whole. “It’s just, well, fair,” Nell Minow wrote on RogerEbert.com.

Based on ticket presales and surveys of moviegoer interest, “Snow White” is expected to collect $45 million to $50 million at domestic theaters over the weekend, according to box-office analysts. That start would be slow for a Disney live-action remake: In the 15 years that the company has been producing them, none of the big-budget entries have exclusively arrived in theaters to less than $58 million, after adjusting for inflation. (That was “Dumbo” in 2019.)

David A. Gross, a box office analyst, noted that some of the thrill of seeing an animated classic reimagined as a live-action spectacle has worn off in the years since “Snow White” went into production. The film’s ultimate box office tally will probably come down to what he called “the babysitter effect.”

“Never underestimate the need for a 6-year-old to be entertained,” Mr. Gross said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Sweetgreen’s CEO on Robots, RFK Jr. and Why Salads Are So Expensive

Published

on

Sweetgreen’s CEO on Robots, RFK Jr. and Why Salads Are So Expensive

When Jonathan Neman was a student at Georgetown in the mid-2000s, he and some friends wanted to start a restaurant. A fast-food restaurant, but it would be healthy. And cool.

The documentary “Super Size Me” had made waves, and “we were going to be rejecting the fast food of the previous generation,” Mr. Neman said.

He and his business partners, Nicolas Jammet and Nathaniel Ru, opened the first Sweetgreen in 2007, on the edge of campus on M Street in Washington. As they expanded, they decided against franchising the brand, keeping control of every new location. Soon it became a buzzy millennial lifestyle brand. It sponsored an annual music festival. It went public in late 2021.

Sweetgreen now has more than 250 restaurants across the United States. The chain is known for its endlessly customizable salads — and for how quickly the cost of all those extra toppings and dressings can add up. (A recent lunch there cost me $16.28.)

The company also runs a growing number of locations that include what it calls the Infinite Kitchen, with salad-slinging robots that assemble bowls faster than human workers.

Advertisement

With great fanfare, Sweetgreen recently put fries on its menu — air-fried in avocado oil, to make customers feel better about adding a side of carbs to a salad. Much of its food is sourced locally, including avocados from California, which will limit the hit the company takes on tariffs, executives have told investors.

And Sweetgreen doesn’t cater just to office workers eating salads at their desks. Mr. Neman, 40, said he had heard that teenagers were “obsessed” with the salads, which wasn’t the case when Sweetgreen started. “The fact that they think that eating healthy is cool is something that we envisioned,” he said at his office in Los Angeles, where the company is now based.

Back in Washington, the Trump administration is also thinking about what goes into food. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the standard-bearer of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, recently declared that “sugar is poison” and pushed to ban artificial dyes in foods.

Some of those aims resonate with Mr. Neman, whose company worked with the former first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign. But he — like many other company leaders — is trying to talk about the company’s priorities (like eliminating seed oils) without being pulled into the polarized politics of the moment.

“We say we’re not red or blue, but we’re green,” he said.

Advertisement

This interview was condensed and edited for clarity.

Sweetgreen is all about healthy ingredients. Now, there is the “Make America Healthy Again” movement and R.F.K. Jr. pushing to ban artificial dyes in food. What are your thoughts on that?

As it relates to “Make America Healthy,” funny story: In 2016, during a festival, we had a campaign that was a joke, a play on “Make America Great Again.” We made “Make America Healthy Again” hats.

Wow.

We are on the team of anyone who wants to help make America healthier. Back in the days of the Obama administration, we partnered very closely with Michelle Obama.

Advertisement

With R.F.K. Jr., I’ll speak to the parts related to our world. I think bringing more transparency to our food system is great. I think some of those dyes are bad. Sweetgreen has never sold soda very intentionally. We’d make a lot more money if we did. A lot of people wish we did. We never have and I don’t think ever will.

We don’t like to get involved in the rest of it. So we’re not trying to insert ourselves politically, either me personally or as a brand.

Have you communicated with the White House about healthy foods?

We haven’t been directly involved at this point. But if there’s a place for us to help, we’re totally up for it.

There have been cuts at the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees food safety. Do you have any concerns around food safety in the U.S. right now?

Advertisement

I think some of the things I’ve seen could be a little bit alarming. Others seem great.

What are the things that concern you?

I’d want to be careful to have certain guardrails around food safety, for example. And to be careful that there are not any adverse impacts to moving too fast. But overall, I think more transparency around the food system, promoting more real food, getting rid of these artificial chemicals that are allowed in our food and removing any conflicts of interest in people that are regulating our food are all good things.

Let’s talk about the robots. Will they help with profitability?

Absolutely. So what we’ve seen is at the store level, the Infinite Kitchen adds at least seven points of margin. So if you look at our store, right now we’re about a 20 percent margin business. An Infinite Kitchen store should be at least seven points better.

Advertisement

So as more robots make more salads, can people expect prices to come down?

We are very conscious of making sure that Sweetgreen can be something for everyone. I think automation does give us a hedge as labor costs continue to go up, to be able to drive more value and offer that to our customer.

How much is too much to pay for a salad?

It really depends what you put in it. When you think about the cost of something, you have to sometimes think about the total cost. There’s the cost to you, but when you eat certain things, what’s the cost to your health? What’s the cost to the environment? People are paying not only for the quality of the taste in the food, but the fact that it’s made by hand, the fact that we pay our farmers and our team members fairly.

What’s your back story? Tell me about your parents and growing up in Los Angeles.

Advertisement

My parents immigrated here in 1979. They were Iranian Jews who came during the revolution. And that was a big part of my story growing up because I think about how fragile your life and reality can be.

I’m the oldest of four boys. Being Jewish is a big part of my identity. I’ve always been very connected to Israel and my Jewish faith and big family.

My dad has four siblings. They each have four kids, so 20 cousins. Shabbat every Friday. A lot of us Persian Jews came to Los Angeles during that time.

Entrepreneurship is really a part of the culture. Growing up, I knew very few people who worked for big companies. Everybody was a small-business owner in some way. My dad and his brothers worked together. They started a textile business.

I always knew I wanted to be in business. From a very early age my dad would take me to work with him. One of my earliest memories was that I’d want to put on a suit — because he put on a suit — and go to his factory and walk around.

Advertisement

You had this great network of entrepreneurs during the start-up process. Were you calling your dad?

I had a lot of mentors in the community, including my dad. Always was and still is. I always give my dad a lot of credit because I don’t think he expected me to go to Georgetown and then to, like, start a little salad shack.

What was it like to be an entrepreneur in Washington at that time?

Entrepreneurship has become a lot sexier over the past 20 years. At the time, especially at Georgetown, that wasn’t the culture. The cool thing was going to get a job in government or consulting or banking.

I got accepted to what I thought was my dream job, at Bain & Company, the consulting firm.

Advertisement

I would have had to leave D.C. The restaurant was up and running. I spoke to my partners, like what should I do? Should I stay? Should I go? They’re like, “It’s one restaurant now. Why don’t you go and get these skills and then see what happens?” I went and realized consulting wasn’t really for me, especially after being an entrepreneur.

Finally, it was actually a conversation with someone at Bain. I always remember this conversation because he’s like: “Listen, you have two big opportunities to take huge risks in your life. One is now. The other is after your kids are out of school. You don’t have anything to worry about right now.”

I remembered this phrase: “You can’t fall from the floor.”

Time for the lightning round. Do you have any secret Sweetgreen menu tips?

The big unlock to the secret menu is the mixing of dressings. Putting two together, like spicy cashew with a green goddess. You have this whole different experience.

Advertisement

Do you use A.I.? If so, what was the last question you asked a bot?

I do use A.I. a lot. The last thing I did was not a work thing. It was personal. I have two kids, a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old. I put a picture of them in and asked what they’re going to look like when they grow up. It has blown my mind because I can’t unsee it now.

What other C.E.O. do you admire?

I’d always looked up to Howard Schultz. I think what he did at Starbucks was amazing.

Do you work on a plane, or do you zone out?

Advertisement

I work a lot on the plane. It’s this amazing quiet time where I can do a lot of the work that I can’t do day to day.

How do you sign off your emails?

Usually just “JN.” If it’s a more inspirational message, I’ll write, “Onward.”

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk's conflicts of interest: $2.37 billion in potential federal penalties, report says

Published

on

Elon Musk's conflicts of interest: .37 billion in potential federal penalties, report says

Elon Musk and his companies faced at least $2.37 billion in potential federal fines and penalties the day President Trump took office, according to a congressional report released Monday that highlights the possible conflicts of interest posed by the billionaire’s cost-cutting work in government.

The 43-page memo by the minority staff of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is the most exhaustive attempt yet to detail Musk’s alleged conflicts as an advisor to Trump and chief promoter of his team called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

Based on publicly available documents, media reports and the committee’s own calculations, the memo found that as of Jan. 20, Musk and his companies were “subject to at least 65 actual or potential actions by 11 different federal agencies” and that 40 of those created $2.37 billion in potential liabilities.

“Mr. Musk has taken a chainsaw to the federal government with no apparent regard for the law or for the people who depend on the programs and agencies he so blithely destroys,” the memo stated. “The through line connecting many of Mr. Musk’s decisions appears to be self-enrichment and avoiding what he perceives as obstacles to advancing his interests.”

The memo notes that Musk’s companies have received more than $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits going back more than 20 years. And it notes that SpaceX, as of Friday, had $10.1 billion in federal contracts.

Advertisement

“President Trump could not have chosen a person more prone to conflicts of interest,” states the memo, which calls on the president, executive departments and regulatory agencies to “take coordinated action to address Elon Musk’s threat to the integrity of federal governance.”

In a statement, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said the claims were baseless.

“Mr. Musk has never used his position for personal or financial gain, and any assertion otherwise is completely false and defamatory. Dick is clearly suffering from a debilitating and uncurable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Cheung said.

Blumenthal signed letters sent Sunday to Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Co. and x.AI Corp. — Musk’s artificial intelligence company, which acquired his social media platform X Corp. — demanding more information about any federal investigations, litigation and regulatory actions involving each company.

The letters also requested to know what measures they had taken to deal with any possible conflict of interest involving Musk, who has majority stakes or controlling interests in the companies.

Advertisement

None of the companies immediately responded to emails for comment, nor did DOGE.

Musk has previously stated in a joint interview with President Trump on Fox News, that he would “recuse myself if it is a conflict,” while the president said, “He won’t be involved.”

Last week, Musk also said during a Tesla earnings call that he was stepping back from DOGE to focus on his electric car maker, though he would remain involved with the cost-cutting effort likely through Trump’s entire term.

The once-cutting-edge Austin, Texas, company has seen its profit and share price plunge amid Trump’s looming tariffs that Musk has opposed and a brand crisis precipitated by his prominent role in the administration.

The committee’s memo found that Tesla created most of the potential penalties for Musk — a cumulative $1.89 billion — due to investigations, lawsuits and other issues involving eight agencies.

Advertisement

The largest single liability was a potential $1.19-billion fine due to a reported criminal investigation opened by the Department of Justice into allegedly false or misleading statements made by Musk and the company about its Autopilot and Full-Self Driving Features since as early as 2016.

The Times previously reported the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is probing the Full-Self Driving technology after reports of four collisions in low-visibility conditions, including one in which a pedestrian was killed.

However, doubts have been raised about the Justice Department’s commitment to any prosecution. The memo notes that in February the department dismissed a lawsuit it filed against SpaceX for allegedly discouraging asylum seekers and refugees from applying for jobs or hiring them because of their citizenship status. It calculated the lawsuit could have exposed SpaceX to $46.1 million in liabilities.

The second single largest liability of $462 million facing Musk also involved Tesla. It arose out of a 2023 lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the company’s alleged toleration of widespread racial harassment of Black employees at its Fremont, Calif., factory. Tesla has denied the allegations. In January, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners and the agency’s general counsel.

A third major potential liability of nearly $240 million involving the company stemmed from a media report that the company was subject to a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation due to a whistleblower claim that it didn’t disclose fire risks posed by its solar panel systems.

Advertisement

The other large potential liability, according to the memo, involved Neuralink, a company developing a brain-computer interface that allows paralyzed people to communicate via their thoughts or brain waves.

The memo notes the SEC opened an investigation into the Fremont, Calif., company after Musk allegedly overstated the safety of its implants while raising some $240 million from investors. A physician’s group filed a complaint that the implants had caused the deaths of at least 12 monkeys.

Neuralink has said it is committed to treating test animals humanely.

Another major alleged liability noted in the report involves a complaint the SEC filed against Musk accusing him of failing to make a timely disclosure in 2022 that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter.

The agency estimated Musk saved an estimated $150 million from unsuspecting investors unaware of this as he built up his stake in the company he ultimately acquired and renamed X. Musk has criticized the lawsuit, which is pending.

Advertisement

Other potential liabilities faced by Musk’s companies include a $633,000 fine the Federal Aviation Administration levied against SpaceX in September for alleged license violations during two Florida launches of its rockets. The agency said the case remains open.

Three of Musk’s companies also face allegations they violated Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, including 26 violations contested by Tesla creating $583,000 in liabilities, according to the memo.

With Republicans in control of the Senate, the Democrats on the investigations committee have minimal power, since they can’t hold hearings or subpoena witnesses. The committee has previously requested information from Musk’s companies on potential conflicts of interests, but Blumenthal said it hasn’t gotten a satisfactory response.

This memo calls on Trump and his administration to respond to congressional information requests regarding Musk’s “federal entanglements,” conduct reviews to ensure “appropriate measures were/are in place to prevent undue influence” and “initiate independent audits of major contracts and awards to Musk-affiliated companies, particularly those with Department of Defense and NASA.”

“No one individual, no matter how prominent or wealthy, is above the law. Anything less than decisive, immediate, and collective action risks America becoming a bystander to the surrender to modern oligarchy — public power in private hands,” the memo concludes.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Titanic Survivor’s Letter, Written Aboard the Ship, Sells for Nearly $400,000

Published

on

Titanic Survivor’s Letter, Written Aboard the Ship, Sells for Nearly 0,000

Days before the Titanic struck an iceberg, a first-class passenger, Col. Archibald Gracie, described the vessel in a letter written while on board: “It is a fine ship but I shall await my journey’s end before I pass judgment on her.”

Colonel Gracie’s journey on the Titanic had a catastrophic end, but he fared better than most.

He was on the top deck of the ship, gripping a railing, as it plunged into the sea. He said he was “swirled” under water before he got to a raft, where he spent hours floating on icy waters before being rescued.

The letter he wrote was sold on Saturday at an auction for $399,000 (or 300,000 pounds), according to Henry Aldridge and Son, an auction house in Wiltshire, England.

The auction house said the letter, written in neat, cursive handwriting, was addressed to an unidentified European ambassador, the great-uncle of the seller. The letterhead shows a triangular red flag with a white star and is printed with the words “On board R.M.S. Titanic.”

Advertisement

The letter was dated April 10, 1912, the day the ship set sail from Southampton, England. On April 12, it was postmarked in London, where it was received at the Waldorf Hotel. The Titanic struck an iceberg just before midnight on April 14 and sank the next day.

The buyer of the letter was based in the United States, according to Andrew Aldridge, the managing director of Henry Aldridge and Son. The auction house did not publicly identify the buyer or the seller.

Mr. Aldridge said in an email that the stories of the ship’s passengers “are told through the memorabilia” and that “their memories are kept alive through those items.”

The auction house had initially expected the letter to sell for up to 60,000 pounds, or nearly $80,000.

Colonel Gracie, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, was a high-profile survivor of the Titanic disaster, in which about 1,500 people perished.

Advertisement

He died eight months later, in December 1912, of complications from diseases, but his doctors and his family said that the real cause was that he had never recovered from the shock of the Titanic disaster, according to The New York Times.

After Colonel Gracie was rescued, he began work on “The Truth About the Titanic,” a book about his experience that was published posthumously. The New York Times review of the book said “there is something effective in the very lack of directness and coherency in the narrative.”

Colonel Gracie said in an interview with The New York Tribune that he had been on the top deck of the ship when it was hit by a wave that sent other people overboard. He managed to stay on and grabbed a brass railing.

“When the ship plunged down, I was forced to let go, and I was swirled around and around for what seemed an interminable time,” he said. “Eventually I came to the surface to find the sea a mass of tangled wreckage.”

He said he grabbed a wooden grating and then saw a canvas-and-cork raft. He made it onto the raft and began trying to rescue others. They eventually reached a rescue ship, R.M.S. Carpathia.

Advertisement

“The hours that elapsed before we were picked up by the Carpathia were the longest and most terrible that I ever spent,” Colonel Gracie said, according to The Tribune. “Practically without any sensation of feeling because of the icy water, we were almost dropping from fatigue.”

Colonel Gracie was an established figure in New York and Washington society.

His father had been an officer in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. Colonel Gracie was also a descendant of Archibald Gracie, who built the New York City mayor’s official residence, Gracie Mansion, in 1799.

After news of the Titanic’s sinking reached the United States, and it was not known whether Colonel Gracie had survived, his wife, Constance Schack Gracie, was reported missing for unrelated reasons.

Mrs. Gracie had not been on the ship, but had left town to avoid being subpoenaed in the lunacy trial of another society woman, Mary E. Gage, according to The New York Times.

Advertisement

In the days after the Titanic disaster, the Gracies’ daughter, Edith Gracie, was asked about the whereabouts of her mother, which she said she did not know, and about the fate of her father, The Times reported.

She said Colonel Gracie had been in Europe recuperating from an operation and had said in a letter that he would return home with a much stronger constitution.

“It is too terrible to think of,” she said, “but I am hoping against hope that he has come through the perils of the accident without harm.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending