Speaker 1: Europe is our weakest market. We're stronger everywhere else, so
Speaker 1: our sales are are doing doing well at this point.
Speaker 1: We don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall, and the
Speaker 1: you know the obviously the stock market recognizes that since
Speaker 1: we're now back over a trillion dollars in market caps,
Speaker 1: so really the market is aware of the situation. So
Speaker 1: it's it's already turned around.
Speaker 2: But sales still down compared to this time last year
Speaker 2: in your in Europe.
Speaker 1: Okay, and yes, but that's that's true of all manufacturers.
Speaker 1: There's no except questions.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 1: Does that mean you're quite weak?
Speaker 2: Okay, but you would acknowledge when you that what you
Speaker 2: are facing. Okay, let's just take it as Europe, what
Speaker 2: you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla is
Speaker 2: an incredibly aspiration national brand. People identified with it, it
Speaker 2: saw it, they saw it as being at the forefront
Speaker 2: of the climate crisis. And now people are driving around
Speaker 2: with stickers in their car saying I bought this before
Speaker 2: we knew Elon was crazy.
Speaker 1: And there are also people who are by buying it
Speaker 1: because Elon's crazy, or however they may view it. So, yes,
Speaker 1: we've lost some sales perths on the left, but we've
Speaker 1: gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this
Speaker 1: point are strong, and if we've seen no problem with them.
Speaker 2: Mad So what I mean?
Speaker 1: You can just look at the stock price if you
Speaker 1: want the best insider information. The stock market analysts have
Speaker 1: that and stock wouldn't be trading near all time eyes
Speaker 1: if it was not. If things weren't, They're fine. Don't
Speaker 1: worry about it.
Speaker 2: Okay, I was citing sales figures rather than share price.
Speaker 2: Well tell me then, how committed you are to Tesla?
Speaker 2: Do you see yourself and are you committed to still
Speaker 2: being the chief executive of Tesla in five years time? Yes,
Speaker 2: no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 1: Well no, I might die, Okay, sure to that. Let
Speaker 1: me see you I'm dead? So slight?
Speaker 2: Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't
Speaker 2: have any bearing on your decision?
Speaker 1: Well that's not really Sorry discussion in this forum. The
Speaker 1: I think, obviously there should be a conversation for if
Speaker 1: there's something incredible is done, that compensation should match that
Speaker 1: something incredible was done. But I'm confident that whatever the
Speaker 1: whatever some activist posing as a judge in Delaware. Happens
Speaker 1: to do will not affect the future compensation.
Speaker 2: This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty
Speaker 2: six billion dollar pay package that was that was awarded
Speaker 2: to you. I think the value on the basis on
Speaker 2: the current value of stock options.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not a judge, not a judge. The activist who
Speaker 1: is causplaying a judge in a Halloween costume.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's your characterization. I think the on the current
Speaker 2: value of stock options. I think the actual justice according
Speaker 2: to the law, on the current value of stock options.
Speaker 2: I think the value of that pay package stands at
Speaker 2: about one hundred billion dollars. Are you saying you are
Speaker 2: relaxed about the value of your future pay package. Your
Speaker 2: decision to be committed to Tesla for the next five
Speaker 2: years as long as you are still with us on
Speaker 2: this planet is completely independent of pay. No, it's not independent.
Speaker 2: So pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment
Speaker 2: to Tesla.
Speaker 1: A sufficient boarding control such that I cannot be ousted
Speaker 1: by activists investors is what matters to me. And I've
Speaker 1: said this publicly many times, but let's not have this
Speaker 1: whole thing be a discussion of my list pay. It's
Speaker 1: not a money thing. It's a reasonable control thing over
Speaker 1: the future of the company, especially if we building millions,
Speaker 1: potentially billions of humanoid robots. I can't be sitting there
Speaker 1: and one going to get tossed out by for political
Speaker 1: reasons by activists. That would be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now,
Speaker 1: let's move on.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well just one question, move on, Well, one question
Speaker 2: before we move on to other companies, which is that
Speaker 2: I wonder if some of what you've has happened to
Speaker 2: Tesla in the last few months, did you take it personally?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: And did it make you re great? Any of you
Speaker 2: all think twice about your political endeavors because it is
Speaker 2: I I.
Speaker 1: Did what needed to be done, uh, the violent antibody reaction,
Speaker 1: and I'm just I'm not someone who's ever committed violence,
Speaker 1: and yet massive violence was committed against my companies, massive
Speaker 1: violence was threatened against me. Who are these people? Why
Speaker 1: would they do that? How wrong can they be? They're
Speaker 1: on the wrong, on the wrong side of history, and
Speaker 1: that's an evil thing to do to go and damage
Speaker 1: some pointocent person's car, to threaten to kill me. What
Speaker 1: strong are these people? I have not harmed anyone. So
Speaker 1: something needs to be done about them, and a number
Speaker 1: of them are going to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 2: You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms,
Speaker 2: but I.
Speaker 1: Think, well, it's into showrooms and burning down cars is unacceptable.
Speaker 1: Those people will go to prison, and the people that
Speaker 1: funded them and organized them will also go to prison.
Speaker 2: Don't worry, wouldn't you, wouldn't you or wouldn't wouldn't you
Speaker 2: acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla
Speaker 2: in Europe were were upset at your politics, and very
Speaker 2: few of them would have been violent in any way.
Speaker 2: They just objected to what they saw you say or
Speaker 2: do politically.
Speaker 1: Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
Speaker 1: it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and
Speaker 1: hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay.
Speaker 1: You know, that's absurd. That is in no way justifiable
Speaker 1: at all in any way, shape or format. And some
Speaker 1: of the legacy media and nonelests have sort of justified,
Speaker 1: which is unconscionable. Shame on them.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about your other companies. Then, in other business areas,
Speaker 2: SpaceX I saw that you said in a speech at
Speaker 2: the West Point Military Academy recently that the future of
Speaker 2: warfare is AI and drones, and obviously defense is an
Speaker 2: increasingly booming sector. With the state of the world at
Speaker 2: the moment, do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 1: You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer.
Speaker 1: So SpaceX is is the space launch leader, So SpaceX
Speaker 1: doesn't do drones. SpaceX builds rockets, satellites and its terminals.
Speaker 1: So SpaceX has a a very dominant position in space launch.
Speaker 1: So of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX
Speaker 1: will probably do, China will do the remain half half
Speaker 1: of the remaining amounts of five percent, and the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, including the rest of the US, will
Speaker 1: do about five percent. So SpaceX will do about ten
Speaker 1: times as much as the rest of the world combined,
Speaker 1: or twenty times as much as China, which is in
Speaker 1: China is doing actually a very impressive job. The reason
Speaker 1: for this is that we're putting it into orbit the
Speaker 1: largest satellite constellation the Walls have ever seen by far,
Speaker 1: So I think at this point about maybe approaching eight
Speaker 1: percent of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX and
Speaker 1: they're providing high high mad with global connectvity throughout the world.
Speaker 1: In fact, this connection is on a SpaceX connection. So
Speaker 1: I think this is a very good thing because it
Speaker 1: means that we can provide low cost by bandwidth internet
Speaker 1: to pass the world if don't have it or it's
Speaker 1: very expensive. And I think the single biggest thing you
Speaker 1: can do to look people out of poverty and help
Speaker 1: them is giving them an Internet connection, because once you
Speaker 1: have the Internet connection, you can learn anything for free
Speaker 1: on the Internet, and you can also sell your goods
Speaker 1: and services to the global market. And we want to
Speaker 1: have knowledge by the Internet and the ability to engage
Speaker 1: in commerce that this is going to greatly improve quality
Speaker 1: of life for people throughout the world. And it has.
Speaker 1: And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience
Speaker 1: who may have been helpful and you know, with Starlink
Speaker 1: and getting it to approved in their country. And I
Speaker 1: think it's doing a lot of good in the countries
Speaker 1: that have a pret of it, which is I think
Speaker 1: this point one hundred and thirty countries are very happy
Speaker 1: with it. I don't currently into space space actually getting
Speaker 1: into the weapons business. That's something that's not an aspiration
Speaker 1: we're freaquent. We're frequently asked to do to do weapons programs,
Speaker 1: but we have justified a client.
Speaker 2: Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed starlink as a separate
Speaker 2: entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 1: It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
Speaker 1: in the future.
Speaker 2: And what would be the what would be the time frame,
Speaker 2: what kind of time frame you consider it?
Speaker 1: I mean no rush, no, I mean no rush to
Speaker 1: your public. The public is, I guess, a way to
Speaker 1: you know, potentially make more money, but at the expense
Speaker 1: of a lot of public company overhead and inevitably a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying. So really
Speaker 1: something needs to be done about the share shareholder shareholder
Speaker 1: at road of lawsuits in the US because it allows
Speaker 1: plaintiff's law firms who don't represent the shareholders to pretend
Speaker 1: that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet plaintiff
Speaker 1: with a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuits the company,
Speaker 1: and the irony being that extreme irony that even if
Speaker 1: the class they purport to represent were to vote that
Speaker 1: they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit will still continue.
Speaker 1: So how can it be a class action representing a
Speaker 1: class if the class were against it? And that's the
Speaker 1: bizarre situation with Ground in the US that needs it's
Speaker 1: a diary to perform as anyone's running public company. You've
Speaker 1: experienced this. It's an absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 2: Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it? You've
Speaker 2: certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this
Speaker 2: to him. Is this something you're trying to change before
Speaker 2: any alnk Ipo.
Speaker 1: Well, we need, we need a law to be passed.
Speaker 1: The trouble being that you need sixty Senate Senate voters
Speaker 1: and the Democrats will vote against it. The the the
Speaker 1: plaintiff's bar is I believe, the second and largest contributor
Speaker 1: to the Democratic Party. That's that's the issue. At the
Speaker 1: state level, this can be solved, and I should say
Speaker 1: Texas recently passed a law which at at least the
Speaker 1: state level made Yes, it's much more reasonable because you
Speaker 1: have to get at least one in thirty three shareholders
Speaker 1: to agree that they are part of a class of
Speaker 1: shareholders three. This is a This will be really helped
Speaker 1: with privilege lawsuits.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's talk about AI, which is in so many
Speaker 2: of your businessnesses and in all our worlds in different ways.
Speaker 2: It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI.
Speaker 2: Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago,
Speaker 2: you're in this space, of course with Grop which almost
Speaker 2: everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
Speaker 2: and you've obviously got a legal battle with open ai
Speaker 2: and Sam Altman. I wonder if you could say something
Speaker 2: about the status of that, because you were together in
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia with the president last week, with Sam Altman
Speaker 2: in the same place at the same time.
Speaker 1: In the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: So does that mean you are pushing ahead with the
Speaker 2: lawsuit against open ai.
Speaker 1: Yes. So I came up with the name open ai
Speaker 1: as an open source and as a nonprofit, and I
Speaker 1: founded AI opening I for the first roughly fifty million dollars,
Speaker 1: and it was intended to be a nonprofit open source company,
Speaker 1: and now is they're trying to change that for their
Speaker 1: own financial benefit into a for profit company that is
Speaker 1: closed source. So this would be like let's say you
Speaker 1: you finded a nonprofit to help reserve the Amazon rainforest,
Speaker 1: but instead of doing that, they became a lumber company
Speaker 1: chopped down the forest and sold the word. You'd be like,
Speaker 1: wait a second, that's not what I funded. That's opening eye.
Speaker 2: They've made some changes to their call for instructure, though,
Speaker 2: haven't they since in recognition of of what you've said?
Speaker 1: Now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 2: Okay, they have part they have partly walked back their
Speaker 2: plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made no
Speaker 2: difference to how you feel about it. So you determined
Speaker 2: to see them in court, of course, Well, that's that's
Speaker 2: certainly going to be one to watch. I also wanted
Speaker 2: to ask you about AI and regulation because when you
Speaker 2: were here last talking to John Nickolthway, you had some
Speaker 2: pretty strong words about the risk that AI poses, and
Speaker 2: you said that you really felt what the US was
Speaker 2: missing was a federal AI regulator, that you know, something
Speaker 2: along lines of the Food and Drug Administration or the
Speaker 2: Federal Aviation Administration. Now you're clearly now in a zone
Speaker 2: where you're more you're more on the cutting regulation side
Speaker 2: than wanting new regulators. So has your view changed on
Speaker 2: the need for an AI regulator?
Speaker 1: Well, that that I don't think there should be regulator.
Speaker 1: Is you think of regulators like referees on the on
Speaker 1: the field. In sports, there should be some number of referees,
Speaker 1: but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you
Speaker 1: can kick the ball without hitting one. So in many
Speaker 1: and most fields in the US, that the regulatory burden
Speaker 1: has grown over time to the point where it's like
Speaker 1: having more referees than players on the field. So and
Speaker 1: this is a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity.
Speaker 1: It's very important to appreciate this. This is happened throughout history.
Speaker 1: When you have an extended period of prosperity with no
Speaker 1: existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the
Speaker 1: for unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that
Speaker 1: every year more laws and more regulations are pasted, because
Speaker 1: you know, legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going
Speaker 1: to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of
Speaker 1: more and more laws and regulations of a time until
Speaker 1: everything is illegal. And let me give you an example
Speaker 1: of a truly absurd situation under the Biden administration, Space
Speaker 1: EFFX was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now,
Speaker 1: the problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itard
Speaker 1: in National Traffic and Arms regulations to hire anyone who
Speaker 1: is not a permanent resident of the United States, because
Speaker 1: the preface being that they will take advanced rocket technology
Speaker 1: and return to their home country if they're not a
Speaker 1: permanent resident. So we're simultaneously in a situation where it's
Speaker 1: illegal to hire simul science use and is also illegal
Speaker 1: to hire asylum seekers, and the Widen's Departner of Justice
Speaker 1: chose to prosecute us despite both paths being illegal. Down
Speaker 1: if you do, Down if you don't.
Speaker 2: My question specifically about a regulator for AI, which you
Speaker 2: said three years ago was needed, and you said we
Speaker 2: need to be proactive on the regulation of AI rather
Speaker 2: than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that?
Speaker 1: No, of course not. No, of course not. What I'm
Speaker 1: saying is that there should be summer recently on the field,
Speaker 1: a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam
Speaker 1: packed with referees, uh that such that you cannot kick
Speaker 1: the ball in any direction without hitting one. So the
Speaker 1: the fields that have been around for a long time,
Speaker 1: such as automotive, so aerospace, you know, if the sort
Speaker 1: of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new
Speaker 1: fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated. In fact, there is
Speaker 1: no regulator.
Speaker 2: At all, so they should be. Do you still think.
Speaker 1: That, Yes, I'm simply saying, which I think is just
Speaker 1: basic common sense, that you want to have at least
Speaker 1: you want to have a few referees in the field.
Speaker 1: You don't want to have an army of referees, but
Speaker 1: you want to have a few referees on any given field,
Speaker 1: in any given sport or any given arena, industrial arena,
Speaker 1: to ensure help that public safety is taking care of
Speaker 1: of But you already has. So there's a there's a
Speaker 1: there's a proper number of referees. Like I said, it's
Speaker 1: actually very easy to visualize this when compared to sports.
Speaker 1: If the whole field is packed with referees, that would
Speaker 1: look absurd. But if there were no referees at all,
Speaker 1: your game is not going to be as good.
Speaker 2: Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your
Speaker 2: your role advising government. You are in this unique and
Speaker 2: unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts
Speaker 2: with the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX and also
Speaker 2: now an insight does knowledge of it because of those
Speaker 2: can you see that there is a conflict of interest
Speaker 2: or a potential conflict of interest in broad terms, just
Speaker 2: through that very fact.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Actually, there have been many advisors
Speaker 1: in throughout history and the US goverment and others who
Speaker 1: have had economic interests, and I am silutely an advisor.
Speaker 1: I don't have a formal power. And that's a president
Speaker 1: can choose to accept my advice or not, and that's
Speaker 1: that's how it goes. If there's a single contract that
Speaker 1: any of my companies that have received that people think
Speaker 1: is somehow not was awarded improperly, it would immediately be
Speaker 1: front page news, to say the least. And if if
Speaker 1: if I hadn't mentioned it something, my competitors would. So
Speaker 1: if you're not seeing that, then the cliller is not
Speaker 1: a complex of interest. The Yeah, there's.
Speaker 2: Another way though to look at it. That For example,
Speaker 2: you have many competitors, whether it's companies like Boeing or
Speaker 2: companies would like to do more of the kind of
Speaker 2: work you do for NASA Blue Origin Rocket Lab. And
Speaker 2: because DOGE is in every federal government department, you or
Speaker 2: people who work for DOGE and you are the driving
Speaker 2: force behind it, have an insight into those companies affairs
Speaker 2: and those companies relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 1: Now, all we do is we review the organization to
Speaker 1: see if if the organization has departments that are no
Speaker 1: longer relevant, and and then are the contracts that that
Speaker 1: are being awarded good value for money? In fact, frankly,
Speaker 1: the bar is not particularly high. Is there any value
Speaker 1: money in a contract? And if there's if there isn't,
Speaker 1: then we may make recommendations to the secretary. The secretary
Speaker 1: can I choose to take those actions or not take
Speaker 1: those actions, And that's it. And then any action that
Speaker 1: that that is as a function of DOGE is posted
Speaker 1: to the DOGE website and to the doge dog got
Speaker 1: at doge handle on the x platform. So it's it's
Speaker 1: complete tran transparency. And I have not seen any a
Speaker 1: case where where so that's my large it's even been
Speaker 1: an accusation of conflict because it is completely and utterly transparent.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 2: And what about the international dimension. Now, let's think about Starlink.
Speaker 2: Starlink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's
Speaker 2: sought after all over the world. It's critical to the
Speaker 2: frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming
Speaker 2: its way, and there is some evidence that companies are
Speaker 2: allowing access to it because they want to be close
Speaker 2: to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So
Speaker 2: bloomberat It broke news today that the South African government
Speaker 2: is working around the rules on black ownership in order
Speaker 2: to allow starlinkin and that is being done on the
Speaker 2: eve of the visit the President Ramaposa is going to
Speaker 2: make the White House. Do you recognize that as a
Speaker 2: conflict of interest?
Speaker 1: Now? Of course, first of all, you should be questioning
Speaker 1: why is there why are the racist laws in Africa?
Speaker 1: That's the first problem. That's what you should be attacking.
Speaker 1: It's improper for the racist laws in South Africa. The
Speaker 1: whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, who is a great man, proposed,
Speaker 1: was that all races should be on an equal footing.
Speaker 1: Is South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not
Speaker 1: to replace one set of racist laws, but another set
Speaker 1: of racist laws which is ubslutely wrong and improper. So
Speaker 1: that's that's the deal, that all races should be treated
Speaker 1: equally and there should be no preference given to one
Speaker 1: or the other. Whereas there are now one hundred and
Speaker 1: forty laws in South Africa that give that basically gives
Speaker 1: strong preference to to if you're if you're black South
Speaker 1: African and not otherwise. And so now I'm in the
Speaker 1: subsurd situation where I was born in South Africa but
Speaker 1: cannot get a license to operate installing because I'm not black. Well,
Speaker 1: it looks it looks looks like that, right, it looks
Speaker 1: like that's about to change. I just asked you a question,
Speaker 1: Please answer. Does that seem right to you?
Speaker 2: Well, those rules were designed to bring Those rules were
Speaker 2: designed to bring about an era of more economic equality
Speaker 2: in South Africa, and it looks like the government has
Speaker 2: found a way around those rules for you.
Speaker 1: Ask your question.
Speaker 2: This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from.
Speaker 1: You, yes or no.
Speaker 2: Not for me, Not for me to answer. I have
Speaker 2: got a question for you about about your government work
Speaker 2: and the amount of savings raceless loves. This is not
Speaker 2: for me to answer. Come on, now, you wouldn't be
Speaker 2: trying to dodge a question.
Speaker 1: Question answer you answer?
Speaker 2: I say, I think if you I'm sure you can
Speaker 2: have that conversation directly with the South African government if
Speaker 2: you want to. I want to ask you about the
Speaker 2: total I want to ask you about the total around.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about the total amount that
Speaker 2: you're planning to save through doses work. Before the election,
Speaker 2: you said it was going to be at least two trillion.
Speaker 2: The number currently on dose DOGARV is one hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy billion dollars. That's a big change. What happened to
Speaker 2: the two trillion.
Speaker 1: Or do you expect it to happen immediately? Well?
Speaker 2: Is it going to happen because dose is supposed to
Speaker 2: run till next July.
Speaker 1: I mean your question is episode in this fundamental premise?
Speaker 1: Are you assuming that on day you know, within a
Speaker 1: few months this instant two trillion saved.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you. Is that
Speaker 2: still your aim?
Speaker 1: Then? Is it still your aim to get amount of time?
Speaker 1: Have we not made good progress given the amount of time?
Speaker 2: That's exactly what I'm asking. So is it still your
Speaker 2: aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
Speaker 2: two trillion?
Speaker 1: The ability of those to operate is this function of
Speaker 1: whether the government and doesn't quit. The Congress is willing
Speaker 1: to take our advice. We're not the dictators of the government.
Speaker 1: We are the advisors, and so we can advise, and
Speaker 1: the progress we've made thus far I think is incredible.
Speaker 1: Those teams do incredible work, but the magnitude of the
Speaker 1: savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress
Speaker 1: and from the executive branch of the government in general.
Speaker 1: So we're not the dictators. We are the advisors. But
Speaker 1: thus far, for advisors with the DOG team, to their credit,
Speaker 1: has made incredible progress.
Speaker 2: You've talked about four billion dollars a day being saved,
Speaker 2: but that that won't get which is an I think
Speaker 2: everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government
Speaker 2: is a very good thing, but if you add that up,
Speaker 2: is not going to get to two trillion over the
Speaker 2: lifetime of DOG. I'm sorry, the four billion, the four
Speaker 2: billion a day, if those are going to run till
Speaker 2: next July, is not going to get you to two
Speaker 2: trillion dollars. But you still say it's your aim, so
Speaker 2: we'll take that as read.
Speaker 1: There's there's, there's, there's what doge I mean? I fail?
Speaker 1: You're somewhat trapped in the NPC dialogue tree of a
Speaker 1: traditional book journalist, so it's difficult when when I'm conversing
Speaker 1: with someone who's trapped the dialogue of a conventional journalist
Speaker 1: because it's like talking to a computer. So, uh, doge
Speaker 1: is an advisory group. We are doing the best we
Speaker 1: can as an advisory group. The progress made thus far
Speaker 1: as an advisory group is excellent. I don't think any
Speaker 1: advisory group has done better in the history of advisory
Speaker 1: groups of the government. Now, we we do not make
Speaker 1: the laws, nor do we control the the judiciary, nor
Speaker 1: do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors.
Speaker 1: In that context, we're doing very well. Beyond that, we
Speaker 1: cannot we cannot take action beyond that because we are
Speaker 1: not some sort of imperial dictator of the government. There
Speaker 1: are three branches of government that that art some degree
Speaker 1: opposed to that level of cost savings. Unless let's let's
Speaker 1: let's not criticize whether there's a four trillion. Instead look
Speaker 1: at the fact that our sixty billion has been saved
Speaker 1: and more. We say too.
Speaker 2: And as I said, I think everyone can agree that
Speaker 2: cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being
Speaker 2: responsible with taxpace money is a very good thing. So yes,
Speaker 2: I can see, I can see that you're proud of
Speaker 2: that work. I do want to ask you about USAID
Speaker 2: and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day,
Speaker 2: which I and I know that you called himim. I
Speaker 2: know you've said that already.
Speaker 1: I wanted and I'm just who does Biggs think he
Speaker 1: is to make comments about the welfare of children, given
Speaker 1: that he is before quent to Jeffreystein.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, he's he's he said he regrets those and
Speaker 2: he's spent. He spent. He spent a lot. He spent
Speaker 2: a lot of his own money on on philanthropy around
Speaker 2: the world over the years. My question to you is
Speaker 2: have you looked at the data to check if he
Speaker 2: might be right that the cuts to U s a
Speaker 2: I D might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'd like him to pursure us any any evidence
Speaker 1: whatsoever that that is true. It's false. The what we're
Speaker 1: found with US cuts and by the way, they haven't
Speaker 1: an open cut. The of the U s a D
Speaker 1: that we found to be even slightly useful, we're transferred
Speaker 1: to the Stage Profits, so they've not been deleted. They've
Speaker 1: cerly been transferred to the stage department. But many many
Speaker 1: times over with U SAD and other organizations when we've
Speaker 1: when they said, oh, well, this is going to help
Speaker 1: you know, children, or it's going to help some uh
Speaker 1: disease eradication or something like that. And then when we
Speaker 1: ask for any evidence whatsoever, I say, well, please connect
Speaker 1: us with this group of children so we can talk
Speaker 1: to them and understand more about their issue. We get nothing.
Speaker 1: We don't We don't even try to prevent a show.
Speaker 1: We should come up with a with a show orphan
Speaker 1: meaning like it's sort of like, well, can we at
Speaker 1: least see a few kids, like where are they if
Speaker 1: they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to them and
Speaker 1: talk to their caregivers. And then we get a thing
Speaker 1: as a response, because it's what we find is an
Speaker 1: enormous amount of fraud and graft.
Speaker 2: I put this example.
Speaker 1: Very little actually gets of it, kiuse if anything at all.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me put this example to you because you
Speaker 2: grew up in South Africa, so you will know the
Speaker 2: impact of HIV AIDS well. And this is why I
Speaker 2: asked about the data the US led on international efforts
Speaker 2: to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention. And there's an initiative
Speaker 2: called pet File which is credited with saving twenty six
Speaker 2: million lives in the last twenty years. It was part
Speaker 2: of the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver.
Speaker 2: Its services are disrupted, and unaid says if permanly discontinued,
Speaker 2: there will be another four million AIDS related deaths by
Speaker 2: twenty twenty nine. So if you look at that example,
Speaker 2: which is backed up by data. In twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: six hundred and thirty thousand people died of AIDS related illnesses,
Speaker 2: then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of
Speaker 2: lives could be lost.
Speaker 1: First of all, the program, the AIDS medication program, is continuing,
Speaker 1: so your fund moral premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now,
Speaker 1: do you have another example.
Speaker 2: Not in its entirety, not in its entirety the program
Speaker 2: there's a limited waiver, and UNAIDS have said that not
Speaker 2: all of the services that were previously funded by USA
Speaker 2: IDEA continuing. So that's that's why, that's why I put
Speaker 2: that example to you.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded?
Speaker 2: I'll fix it right now for okay. Well, actually they're
Speaker 2: all on the un unaid's website, so you'll be able
Speaker 2: to see them. But mostly they are to deal with
Speaker 2: Mostly they are to do with prevention, and for example,
Speaker 2: the rollout of a drug called glenna kappavir, which was
Speaker 2: hailed as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for
Speaker 2: many years, which came out last year. So if you
Speaker 2: are perhaps, I'm sure UNA's would be delighted if you're
Speaker 2: able to look at that again.
Speaker 1: Yes, but well, if if in fact this is true,
Speaker 1: which I doubt it is, then we'll affix it.
Speaker 2: Okay, Fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered
Speaker 2: whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
Speaker 2: spend on the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent a
Speaker 2: lot more money on the last US election than you
Speaker 2: envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago. Are
Speaker 2: you going to continue to spend at that kind of
Speaker 2: level on future elections?
Speaker 1: I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to
Speaker 1: do a lot less in the future.
Speaker 2: And why is that?
Speaker 1: I think I've done enough?
Speaker 2: Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 1: Well? If I see a reason to do political spending
Speaker 1: in the future, I will do it. An currently serious.
Speaker 2: What about political influence beyond the US? How often do
Speaker 2: you speak to President.
Speaker 1: I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 2: You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 1: I was on a video caller with him once about
Speaker 1: five years ago.
Speaker 2: That's the only that's the president.
Speaker 1: Oh, you must I get it.
Speaker 2: Actually, i've heard you. I've heard you speak about it.
Speaker 2: For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh,
Speaker 2: I challenged President Putin to uh to was it an
Speaker 2: arm wrestle? And I know the Wall Street Journal has
Speaker 2: reported your reported conversations. If you're if you're saying they
Speaker 2: haven't happened other than once, I'll take that as read.
Speaker 1: Is there a worse publication on the face of the
Speaker 1: earth than the Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that
Speaker 1: tolign up my cage for paragraphics that that that newspaper
Speaker 1: is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's you know,
Speaker 1: if there's one newspaper that should be pro capitalist, it's
Speaker 1: the one of Wall Street in the name, But it isn't.
Speaker 1: So I have the very lowest opinion of the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal. Absolutely answers, and you clearly have believed the
Speaker 1: tripe that you've written, that you've written newspapers I.
Speaker 2: Read, I read very widely, and I'm putting these questions
Speaker 2: to you so that you have an opportunity to respond
Speaker 2: to them. Which you are and for which we're all
Speaker 2: grateful to hear. Your response is, okay, we are. We
Speaker 2: are out of time.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned it challenging. I did so on on
Speaker 1: the X platform. I challenged Vladimir put over the I
Speaker 1: didn't talk to him. That was a post on the
Speaker 1: X platform.
Speaker 2: That's why. That's why I asked you. And you've and
Speaker 2: you've clorified and explained. Thank you. That's that's why I
Speaker 2: was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and
Speaker 2: you said, we have a.
Speaker 1: Okay, legacy media lize.
Speaker 2: Okay, listen. I thought I might give Grock the last
Speaker 2: word because when I asked Groc what your hardest challenge is,
Speaker 2: it said the strain of managing multiple high stake ventures
Speaker 2: made financial regulatory in public relations crises. And I wondered
Speaker 2: whether you recognize that characterization and whether you do think
Speaker 2: that this is a pivotal year in your life.
Speaker 1: Well, every has been somewhat piddle, and this one's no different.
Speaker 1: So in terms of interesting things that probably our accomplish,
Speaker 1: this here there getting starships two be fully reusable, so
Speaker 1: that we catch both the booster and the ship, which
Speaker 1: will be the first fully reusable or little rocket ever
Speaker 1: in history, which would be a profound breakthrough as the
Speaker 1: essential breakthrough necessarily to make multi planetarian ultimately become a
Speaker 1: space bearing civilization. We've got neural link which is now
Speaker 1: helped by patients restore capability using the left of the implant,
Speaker 1: where they're able to control a computer simply by thinking.
Speaker 1: We'll be doing our first patient to restore blank just
Speaker 1: restore to restore site with our blind site implant, which
Speaker 1: is the end of this year early next. In fact,
Speaker 1: that that first patient might be in the U a E.
Speaker 1: Since we have a relationship with you a E and
Speaker 1: the Cleveland Clinic clinic there. The I think what's running
Speaker 1: on the AI front, we are close to what you
Speaker 1: might call a g I or or or digital super intelligence,
Speaker 1: and I think we'll see that we are seeing an
Speaker 1: explosion in digital superintelligence here. And then we've got to HESLA,
Speaker 1: the what will be launching anti based autonomy basically self
Speaker 1: driving cars with no one in them in Austin next month.
Speaker 1: So it's it's a big year for sure. Many other
Speaker 1: things on the in the in the works too. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm a technologist first and foremost.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here
Speaker 2: at Cutter Economic Forum. Thank you