Connect with us

News

Elon Musk’s riskiest bet yet: Donald Trump

Published

on

Elon Musk’s riskiest bet yet: Donald Trump

Among the many audacious gambles that mark Elon Musk’s career, few have been bolder than the bet he is now placing on Donald Trump.

From satellites to electric vehicles, brain chips to AI-powered robots, Musk owns a series of businesses that depend heavily on contracts and rules set by the federal government.

Yet in an election that most political analysts believe to be a coin toss, the world’s richest man has tied his reputation and fortune to Trump’s latest quest for the White House.

Speaking earlier this month to Tucker Carlson, the firebrand former Fox TV host, Musk was only half-joking when he mused about Trump: “If he loses, I’m fucked.”

As the election enters its final stage, Musk’s embrace of the Trump campaign is becoming ever tighter.

Advertisement

It was revealed this week that Musk has donated at least $75mn to his pro-Trump group, America Pac, which has already spent over $118mn on efforts to support the campaign including ads, yard signs and a door-knocking operation.

When Trump held a rally two weeks ago in Butler, Pennsylvania — the site of the July assassination attempt on him — Musk was the surprise guest, bouncing on to the stage like an excited child.

Musk has used X, the social network he owns, to pump out pro-Trump content, including some of the most lurid conspiracy theories that have taken hold on the right.

Musk told a campaign event in the swing state of Pennsylvania this week that the biggest reason for backing Trump was the need for ‘sensible regulations’ © Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
View between the heads of spectators of Donald Trump as he speaks at a rally
Trump, who until recently was highly sceptical of electric vehicles, speaks at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania where Musk was his surprise guest © Jen Golbeck/SOPA Images/Reuters

On Thursday, Musk was back in Pennsylvania, the most important swing state in the election, to make the case for Trump to voters on his own. During the hour-long rally, he sported a gold Make America Great Again hat and gave some hints at the business rationale for his all-in support of Trump — a politician who until recently was highly sceptical of electric vehicles.

Musk said the biggest reason for backing Trump was the need for “sensible regulations”, claiming that “SpaceX can build a giant rocket faster than the licence can be processed by the government, which is insane.” He added: “If the current trend of strangulation by overregulation is not turned around, we won’t get to Mars.”

The owner of Tesla, SpaceX, xAI and X has aspirations to shape the future of humanity — a Neuralink chip in the brain, a robot in the home, a driverless car to get to work, a rocket to colonise Mars. Musk’s bet appears to be that if Trump wins, he would gain substantial influence over how the government treats his companies.

Advertisement

The gamble would pay off if SpaceX and its Starlink satellites can earn more contracts from the US national security apparatus or if Tesla could win over Republicans sceptical of electric vehicles — and perhaps limit probes by regulators into the safety of its self-driving technology. And under Trump, X would be much less likely to clash with the administration over Musk’s absolute conception of “free speech”.

Trump has promised if elected that Musk would lead a “department of government efficiency”.

For Musk critics, the embrace of Trump is an extension of his long-running tussles with the public bodies whose decisions are central to the innovative industries in which Musk operates.

“Regulators have been a thorn in Tesla’s side for years,” says Dan O’Dowd, founder of a software company who is also a critic of Tesla’s efforts in driverless vehicles. “Musk believes that he is above the law.”


Musk and Trump used to be polar opposites in political terms. While the former president has often described climate change as a “hoax”, Musk used to boast that the mission of Tesla was “to help reduce risk of catastrophic climate change”.

Advertisement

The billionaire entrepreneur voted for Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in recent elections. Even in 2022, he was of the view that it was “time for Trump to hang up his hat and sail into the sunset”.

But during the past few months, Musk has not only become Trump’s most influential supporter, but has also embraced some of his most explosive rhetoric — including the claim that vice-president Kamala Harris would make the US a one-party state by turning illegal immigrants into Democrats. “If Trump doesn’t win, this is the last election,” Musk said on Thursday.

Musk’s shift began during the pandemic. He chose to get the Covid-19 jab but was a sceptic of government vaccine requirements for federal employees and contractors. Musk also became increasingly opposed to “woke” culture on the left and had a public argument with his transgender daughter.

Elon Musk gives a small bow of the head as Donald Trump congratulates him after the launch of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft
Musk acknowledges Trump’s congratulations after the launch of a SpaceX rocket and crewed spacecraft in 2020. Musk voted for Joe Biden in that year’s US elections © Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Trevor Traina, a Trump donor who served as the ex-president’s US ambassador to Austria, suggests Musk is participating directly in politics for personal rather than commercial reasons. “As the world’s richest man, there is nothing Elon needs. He is just getting involved,” Traina says.

Musk has also had fights with the Biden administration. During Biden’s first year in office, the Tesla CEO, who has a long history of opposition to trade unions, felt snubbed when he was not invited to a White House event featuring US electric-vehicle manufacturers and the United Auto Workers union.

At the event, Biden praised Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors — which sells fewer than a fifth as many EVs as Tesla — telling her, “You electrified the entire automobile industry. I’m serious. You led, and it matters.”

Advertisement

“He’s never forgotten it,” says a former senior Tesla executive.


For Tesla, the risk of Musk’s election intervention is that it alienates the company’s natural customers. Only 13 per cent of Republicans say they are likely to seriously consider buying an electric vehicle, according to Pew Research, compared with 45 per cent of Democrats.

Trump himself has not been an ally of Tesla’s; he began a sentence this week on Fox saying, “The problem with electric vehicles” before cutting himself off, noting that “Elon Musk is a very good friend of mine.”

“It’s a high-risk, high-reward strategy. I suppose if Trump wins, he looks like a genius. If Trump loses, it doesn’t look so clever,” says Andrew Palmer, former chief executive of Aston Martin. “Whilst I think most people admire what he does, I think there is a risk that it would stimulate people to look for alternatives to Tesla.”

However some of Musk’s Silicon Valley rivals speculate that his goals around Tesla are longer term.

Advertisement

They say that Musk is aware that Tesla’s core business is increasingly under threat from cheaper Chinese EVs and rapidly advancing battery technology. The company has not released a new mass market product since the Model Y in 2020 and it remains unclear when a planned more affordable $25,000 vehicle will be launched.

Instead of releasing new cars — sales of which still account for four-fifths of Tesla’s revenue — Musk has pivoted the company to autonomous driving, robotaxis and AI-powered humanoid robots called Optimus.

A Tesla Optimus Robot in a glass case
Tesla’s Optimus robot at the Paris Auto Show this week. Musk’s aspirations to shape the future of humanity include a robot in the home © Benoit Tessier/Reuters
Aerial View of Tesla’s robotaxi
A golden cybercab wowed Musk’s fans at the ‘We, Robot’ event in Los Angeles earlier this month, but scant details underwhelmed investors © Tesla/Handout/Reuters

The billionaire laid out his sci-fi vision of the future at a splashy “We, Robot” launch at a film studio lot in Los Angeles last week. The dancing robots and golden cybercab wowed his fans, but scant details underwhelmed investors. The stock fell 9 per cent.

Using standard industry valuation multiples, Drew Dickson, founder of Albert Bridge Capital, estimates that Tesla’s auto business may be worth between $70bn and $100bn. By his calculations, that means the remaining $650bn of its market value — and as much as $90bn of Musk’s personal wealth — is largely based on investor optimism about its as-yet unproven technologies, all of which face significant regulatory hurdles before coming to market.

“The entire presentation was done on a movie set, so it was tough for observers to know what was real or not,” says Dickson, who has a short position in Tesla. “One thing Elon is extremely good at: distracting people from an underlying business that has a lot of questions.”

If Trump wins, Musk might hope that Tesla gets a more sympathetic hearing from the federal government. At the moment, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission are all investigating Tesla’s claims about its driver-assistance systems.

Advertisement

NHTSA said on Friday that it has opened a new probe into Tesla after a vehicle with its “full self-driving” technology fatally struck a pedestrian.

Musk promised attendees that self-driving vehicles would be available in Texas and California from next year and robocabs on the road by 2027, but both would require Tesla to secure at least the so-called “Level 4, High Automation” classification and permits from state regulators at a pace far faster than any rivals have achieved.

The process took Google’s Waymo years and required its taxis to be equipped with a wider array of expensive sensors, including lidar laser-based object detection. Tesla’s full self-driving technology relies solely on cameras and is currently ranked as advanced level 2, which means drivers have to keep their hands on the wheel.

“I tend to be a little optimistic with timeframes,” Musk admitted at the event.


Among the Musk companies, SpaceX could benefit most from a close relationship with a US president. Analysts at Morgan Stanley forecast that the company’s revenues could triple to $63bn by 2030, driven to a large degree by Starlink, the satellite internet business which operates a network of 6,000 low-orbit satellites. SpaceX has already surpassed 100 launches this year.

Advertisement

In 2014, SpaceX sued the US Air Force to get into the launch business and has since become Nasa’s indispensable partner in supplying, and soon retiring, the International Space Station and getting astronauts to the moon.

$63bnSome forecasts for SpaceX revenues in 2030, triple what they are now

Although SpaceX has won multibillion-dollar contracts under Biden, it has also sparred with a multitude of federal and state authorities that Musk accuses of stifling innovation with red tape and rules.

Those include the Federal Aviation Administration, National Labor Relations Board and US Fish and Wildlife Service over alleged permitting, labour and environmental violations. Musk has called on the FAA chief to resign, sued the NLRB and mocked regulators claiming he needs a fish licence to launch a rocket.

Musk has also clashed with the Federal Communications Commission. The company needs FCC approval to lower the orbit of its Gen2 satellites even further and ultimately wants to increase their number to 29,988 from the currently permitted 7,500. Musk sharply criticised the FCC for revoking in 2022 a near-$900mn Starlink deal to provide rural broadband after questioning its promises on speed and reliability.

Advertisement

As Musk has intensified his support for Trump, Harris has in turn gone on the attack against the billionaire, using his name in her fundraising pleas.

Her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, told a rally with Michigan union workers that Republicans only care “about their billionaire friends like Elon Musk”.

“This is the guy that wants to be our economic tsar,” asked Walz. “The guy who wants to fire workers and bust unions? A guy who wants to take auto manufacturing to Mexico and source it with Chinese-made parts? You talk to your neighbours and friends and tell me if anybody in Michigan thinks that’s a good idea.”

Onlookers watch from nearby sand dunes as SpaceX’s Starship rocket is prepared for a test launch
Onlookers watch as SpaceX’s Starship rocket is prepared for a test launch in Texas earlier this month. California has blocked the company from increasing the number of its launches there © Eric Gay/AP

A dispute with the California coastal commission last week hinted at how Musk might respond to a Trump loss: by claiming political motives for any decisions that go against his companies.

The California panel voted to deny a request from the US Space Force to increase the number of launches in the state using SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets. One member of the panel also criticised Musk for “hopping about the country spewing . . . political falsehoods” while clamouring for more lucrative government contracts.

In response, SpaceX is suing the regulator and accused it of seeking to “punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO”.

Advertisement

Traina, the Trump donor, believes such battles would also continue in a second Trump term. Musk’s “first impulse” as the head of the government efficiency department “would be to eliminate the California Coastal Commission”. But he adds: “I doubt that is possible.”

Musk insists he is only acting out of concern for the country. “I’m politically active now,” he said at the rally on Thursday, “because I think the future of America and the future of civilisation is at stake.”

News

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

Published

on

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.

Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.

Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.

“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”

The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.

Advertisement

Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.

Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”

“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.

Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran

Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”

Advertisement

The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.

Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.

But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.

His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.

“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.

Advertisement

“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.

Democrats see Trump as vulnerable

Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.

“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.

“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”

Advertisement

Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.

Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder

The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.

Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.

“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.

Advertisement

Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.

“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

Published

on

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

The U.S. Supreme Court

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to allow Virginia to use a new congressional map that favored Democrats in all but one of the state’s U.S. House seats. The map was a key part of Democrats’ effort to counter the Republican redistricting wave set off by President Trump.

The new map was drawn by Democrats and approved by Virginia voters in an April referendum. But on May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia in a 4-to-3 vote declared the referendum, and by extension the new map, null and void because lawmakers failed to follow the proper procedures to get the issue on the ballot, violating the state constitution.

Virginia Democrats and the state’s attorney general then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to put into effect the map approved by the voters, which yields four more likely Democratic congressional seats. In their emergency application, they argued the Virginia Supreme Court was “deeply mistaken” in its decision on “critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the Nation.” Further, they asserted the decision “overrode the will of the people” by ordering Virginia to “conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”

Advertisement

Republican legislators countered that it would be improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into a purely state law controversy — especially since the Democrats had not raised any federal claims in the lower court.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans without explanation leaving in place the state court ruling that voided the Democratic-friendly maps.

The court’s decision not to intervene was its latest in emergency requests for intervention on redistricting issues. In December, the high court OK’d Texas using a gerrymandered map that could help the GOP win five more seats in the U.S. House. In February, the court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map, adopted to offset Texas’s map. Then in March, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the redrawing of a New York map expected to flip a Republican congressional district Democratic.

And perhaps most importantly, in April, the high court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map was a racial gerrymander and must be redrawn. That decision immediately set off a flurry of redistricting efforts, particularly in the South, where Republican legislators immediately began redrawing congressional maps to eliminate long established majority Black and Hispanic districts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending