Bloomberg’s Elon Musk Interview

Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.

I'm David Gera and this is the big take from Bloomberg News.

Today.

On the show, we're bringing you a special conversation in full. Elon Musk spoke with Mishaal Hussein, editor at Large for Bloomberg Weekend at the Cutter Economic Forum. Musk joined remote Lea from Austin, wearing his signature dark jacket with a fur collar. The interview covered a lot of ground, from the billionaire's future at Tesla to his ongoing feud with open Ai CEO Sam Altman and the possibility of Starlink

Hello everyone and Elon Musk, Welcome to cut Their Economic Forum. How are you?

Thank you for having me. I'm fine, How are you?

Very well? Thank you and very pleased to have you with us. You know, among those here in the audience in Doha are some you will know people who have backed to you financially over the years since you last spoke here in twenty twenty two, A lot has changed in your life. You're not only running multiple companies. You were doing that then, but now you also have a role in government. So, first of all, I hope you

Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon Valley yesterday morning. I was in Lasa evening, I mean Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll be there having dinner with Presidence tomorrow night, I believe, and then a much of cabinet secrety meetings and then back to Sloton Valley on Thursday night.

But I mean, the balance of your time is it? Well, clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case as you said a while ago, that it's about one to two days a week on your government work. Yeah, that's correct, And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered in recent months what you've called blowback. So what is your plan for turning that around? The declining sales picture?

Oh, it's already to turn around.

Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show very significant declines in the big markets.

Europe is our weakest market.

We're stronger everywhere else, so our sales are doing doing well at this point.

We don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall.

And the you know, the obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're now back over a trillion dollars in market cap, so really the market is aware of the situation.

So it's it's already turned around.

But sales still down compared to this time last year.

In Europe.

In Europe, okay, and.

Yes, but that's that's true of all manufacturers, there's no exceptions.

Does that mean that you're not going to be able?

Does that mean you're it's quite weak?

Okay, but you would acknowledge. Woudn't you that what you are facing. Okay, let's just take it as Europe what you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla is an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it. It saw it, They saw it it being at the forefront of the climate. And now people are driving around with stickers in their cars saying I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.

And there are also people who are by buying it because Elon's crazy, or however they may view it. So, yes, we've lost some sales, perhaps on the left, but we've gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this point are strong and we've seen no problem with them had so what I mean? You can just look at the stock price if you want the best inside information. The stock market analysts have that, and our stock wouldn't be trading near all time ice if it was not.

If things weren't in good shape. They're fine, don't worry about it.

Okay, I was citing sales figures rather than share price. Well, tell me then, how committed you are to Tesla. Do you see yourself and now you committed to still being the chief executive of Tesla in five years time. Yes, no doubt about that at all.

Well, no, I might die.

Okay, sure to that.

Let me see you if I'm dead. So the slighter mode.

Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any bearing on your decision?

Well, that's not really subject discussion in this forum. The I think, obviously there should be a conversation for if there's something incredible is done, that compensation should match.

That something incredible was done.

But I'm confident that whatever the whatever some activists posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not affect the future compensation.

This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty six billion a pay package that was that was awarded to you. I think the value on the basis on the current value of stock options.

Yeah, not a judge, not a judge.

The activist who is cars playing a judge in a Halloween costume.

Okay, that's your characterization. I think the value on the current value of stock options.

I think the actual justice according to the law, on the.

Current value of stock options. I think the value of that pay package stands at about one hundred billion dollars. Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of your future pay package. Your decision to be committed to Tesla for the next five years as long as you are still with us on this planet is completely independent of pay. No, it's not independent, So pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.

A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted by activists investors is what matter to me. And I've said this publicly many times, but let's not have this whole thing be a discussion of my list pay.

It's not a money thing. It's a reasonable.

Control thing over the future of the company, especially for building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. I can't be sitting there and weren't going.

To get tossed out by for political reasons by activists.

That will be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now, let's move on.

Okay, Well, just one question, well one question before we move on to other companies, which is that I wonder if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in the last few months, did you take it personally?

Yes?

And did it make you regret any of you all think twice about your political endeavors because it is I.

Did what needed to be done, the violent antibody reaction, and I'm not someone who's ever committed violence, and yet massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was threatened against me.

Who are these people? Why would they do that? How wrong can they be?

They're on the wrong on the wrong side of history, and that's an evil thing to do to go and damage some point intocent person's car, to threaten to kill me. What's wrong with these people? I have not harmed anyone, So something needs to be done about them, and a number of them are going to prison and they deserve it.

You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla's showrooms, but I think.

Well, it's into showrooms and burning down cause unacceptable. Those people will go to prison, and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison.

Don't worry, wouldn't you wouldn't you wouldn't wouldn't you acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were were upset at your politics, and very few of them would have been violent in any way. They just objected to what they saw you say or do politically.

Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay. You know, that's absurd. That is in no way justifiable at all in any way, shape or form. And some of the the legacy media and nonetheless have sort of justified which is unconscionable. Shame on them.

After the break, my colleague Michelle Hussein's interview with Elon Musk continues. He talks about his long standing feud with Open AI and its CEO Sam Altman, and his track record on calling for more AI regulation. You're listening to Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at the Qatar Economic Forum.

Let's talk about your other companies, then another business area, SpaceX. I saw that you said in a speech at the West Point Military Academy recently that the future of warfare is AI and drones, and obviously defense is an increasingly booming sector with the state of the world at the moment. Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?

Yeah, so, as they ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer, so SpaceX is is.

The space launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones.

SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals, so SpaceX has a very dominant position in space launch. So of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably do, China will do the remain half of the remaining amounts of five percent, and the rest of the world, including the rest of the US, will do about five percent.

So SpaceX will do about ten times as much as.

The rest of the world combined, or twenty times as much as China, which is in China is doing actually a very impressive job. The reason for this is that we're putting it into orbit the largest satellite constellation the world has ever seen by far, so I think at this point about maybe approaching eighty stable active satellites in orbit our SpaceX and they're providing high high vand with global connectivity throughout the world. In fact, this connection is

That don't have it or it's very expensive.

And I think the single biggest thing you can do to lift people out of poverty and help them is giving them an Internet connection, because once you have the internet connection, you can.

Learn anything for free on the Internet, and you.

Can also sell your goods and services to the global market. And once you have knowledge by the Internet and the ability to engage in commerce, that this is going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world.

And it has.

And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience who may have been helpful, and you know, we're starlink and getting it to approved in the country, and I think it's doing a lot of good in the countries that have approved, which is I think this point one hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it. I don't currently into spate space actually getting into the weapons business.

Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed starlink as a separate entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.

It's possible that starlink may go public at some point in the future, and what would be.

The what would be the time frame, what kind of time frame you consider it.

I mean no rush, I mean no rush to your public. The public is I guess a way to you know, potentially make more money, but at the expense of a lot of public company overhead and inevitably.

A whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying.

So there's really something needs to be done about the share shareholder shareholder derivative lawsuits in the US because it allows plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet plaintiff for a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company, and the irony being that extreme irony that even if the class they purport to represent were to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit

So how can it be.

A class action representing a class if the class were against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in the US that needs a dire ney to reform. As anyone's running a public company, you've experienced this, It's an absurd situation that needs to change.

Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it. You've certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this to him. Is this something you're trying to change before any starlink.

IPO, Well, we need a law to be passed.

The trouble being that Judeen sixty Senate Senate votes and the Democrats will vote against it. The plaintiffs bar is I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.

OK.

Let's talk about AI, which is in so many of you businesses and in all our worlds in different ways. It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI. Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago, you're in this space of course with GROP which almost everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left, and you've obviously got a legal battle with open ai

Time in the neighborhood.

Okay, So does that mean you are pushing ahead with the lawsuit against open Ai.

Yes. So I came up with the name open ai as an open source and as a nonprofit, and I founded ai opening app for the first roughly fifty million dollars, and it was intended to be a nonprofit, open source company, and now is they're trying to change that for their own financial benefit into a for profit company that is closed source. So this would be like, let's.

Say you you finded a nonprofit to help preserve the Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the word.

You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I founded. That's opening Eye.

They've made some changes to their corporate instructure, though, haven't they since in recognition of of what you've said.

And now that's just what they told the media.

Okay, part they have part they have partly walked back their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made no difference to how you feel about it. So you determined to see.

Them in court of course.

Okay, well that's said going to be one to watch. I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation because when you were here last talking to John Mickelfwait, you had some pretty strong words about the risk that AI poses and you said that you really felt what the US was missing was a federal AI regulator that you know, something along lines of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now you're clearly now in a zone where you're more you're more on the

Well that I don't think there should be regulators. You can think of regulators like referees on the on the field in sports, there should be some number of referees, but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can't kick the ball without hitting one.

So in many in most.

Fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown over time to the point where it's like having more referees than players on the field. So and This is a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity.

It's very important to apro appreciate this. This has happened throughout history.

When you have an extended period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the for unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that every year more laws and more regulations are pasted, because you know, legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of more and more laws and regulations of a time until everything is illegal. And let me give you an example

So we're simultaneously.

In a situation where it's illegal to hire slams used and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the Partner of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths being illegal.

Down if you do, down if you don't.

But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI, which you said three years ago was needed, and you said we need to be proactive on the regulation of AI rather than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that?

No, of course not. What No, of course not. What I'm saying is that there should be some referees on the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam packed with referees such so you could not kick a ball in any direction without hitting one. So the the fields that have been around for a long time, such as automotive, so aerospace, you know if the sort of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new

So they should be. Do you still think that.

Yes, I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic common sense that you that you want to have at least you want to have a few referees in the field. You don't want to have an army of referees. But you want to have a few referees on any given field, in any given sport, or even any given arena, industrial arena, to ensure help that public safety is taken care of. But you don't have so there's an't, there's an't, there's a proper number of referees. Like I said, it's actually

Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your role advising government. You are in this unique and unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX, and also now an insider's knowledge of it because of dose. Can you see that there is a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through that very fact?

I don't think so.

Actually, there have been many advisors throughout history and the US government and others who have had economic interests, and I absolutely an advisor. I don't have a formal power, and that's a president can choose.

To accept my advice or not. And that's that's how it goes.

If there's a single contract that of my companies that have received that people think is somehow not was awarded improperly, it would immediately be front page news, to say the least. And if I hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would. So if you're not seeing that, then the clill is not a complex to interest.

The Yeah, there's another way though to look at it. That For example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies like Boeing or companies would like to do more of the kind of work you do for NASA Blue Origin Rocket Lab. And because DOGE is in every federal government department, you or people who work for DOGE and you are the driving force behind it, have an insight into those companies' affairs and those companies' relationships with the federal government.

Now, all we do as we review the organization to see if the organization has.

Departments that are no longer relevant and and then are the contracts that that are being awarded good value for money? In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. Is there any value money in a contract? And if there's if there isn't, then we make recommendations to the secretary. The Secretary can choose to take those actions or not take those actions, and that's it. And then any action that that that is as a function of DOGE is posted to the DOGE website and to the DOGE dog

It is completely and utterly transparent. That's it.

And what about the international dimension, Now, let's think about style. Stalink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's sought after all over the world. It's critical to the frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming its way, and there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close

Now, of course not.

First of all, you should be questioning why is there why the racist laws in South Africa. That's the first pt problem. That's what you should be attacking. It's improper for they be racist laws in South Africa. The whole idea with what Nelson Madelo, who is a great man, proposed, was that or races should be on an equal footing in South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not to replace one set of racist laws with another set

Should be tweat equally and there should be no preference given to one or the other, whereas there are now one hundred and forty laws in South Africa that give a pre that basically give strong preference to to if you if you're black South African and not otherwise. And so now I'm in the subsurd situation where I was born in South Africa but cannot get a license to operates in starlink because I'm not black.

Well, it looks like that's about It looks looks like that, right, looks like that's about to change.

I just asked you a question, Please answer. Does that seem right to you?

Well, those rules were designed to bring Those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa, and it looks like the government has found a way around those rules for you.

Ask your question.

This is this is your ento. Everyone wants to hear from you.

As your question yes or no, not.

For me to answer. I have got a question for you about about your government works and the amount of savings.

Why do you like raceless lots?

This is not for me to answer. Come on, now, you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.

You have to answer question. Answer now, you answer mine.

I say, I think if you I'm sure you can have that conversation directly with the South African government if you want to. I want to ask you about the total believe it, that's not good. I want to ask you about the total around. I want to ask you about the total amount that you're planning to save through Doge's work. Before the election, you said it was going to be at least two trillion. The number currently on doze dog gov is one hundred and seventy billion dollars.

Or do you expect it to happen immediately?

Well? Is it going to happen because dose is supposed to run till next July.

I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise. Are you assuming that on day you know, within a few months this an instant two trillion saved?

No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you, is that still your aim?

Then? Is it still your aim to get the amount of time? Have we not made good progress given the amount of time?

That's exactly what I'm asking. So, is it's still your aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to two trillion?

The ability of those to operate is this function of whether the government.

And this includes the Congress, is willing to take our advice. We're not the dictators of the government. We are the advisors, and so we can advise. And the progress who made thus far I think is incredible. Those team has done incredible work. But the magnitude of.

The savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress and from the yeah executive branch of the government. In general. So we're not the dictators. We are the advisors.

But thus far, for advisors with the DOGE team, to their credit, has made incredible progress.

You've talked about four billion dollars a day being saved, but that that won't get which is an and I think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government is a very good thing. But if you add that up, it's not going to get to two trillion over the lifetime of DOGE.

I'm sorry.

The four billion, the four billion a day, if dose is going to run till next July, is not going to get you to two trillion dollars. But you still say it's your aim, so we'll take that as read.

There's there's, there's there's what DOGE I mean? I feel you are somewhat trapped.

In the NPC dialogue tree of a traditional journalist. So it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who's trapped in the dialog of a conventional journalist because it's like talking to a computer.

So doges an advisory.

Group, we are doing the best we can as an advisory group. The progress made thus far as an advisory group is excellent. I don't think any advisory group has done better in the history of advisory groups of the government. Now, we do not make the laws, nor do we control the judiciary, nor do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors. In that context, we are doing very well.

There are three branches of the government that that art some degree opposed to that level. Cost savings, no or less.

Let's let's let's not criticize whether there's a four trillion and instead look at the fact that that out sixty billion has been saved and more will we saved two And.

As I said, I think everyone can agree that cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So yes, I can see, I can see that you're proud of that work.

After the break, Michelle asks Elon Musk about US AID funding cuts, whether he's in communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the steepest challenges facing the multi hyphenit CEO. You're listening to Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at the Cutter Economic Forum.

I do want to ask you about USAID and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day, which and I know that you called him. I know you've said that already.

I wanted.

And I'm just who does Bill Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare of children, given that he is before quented Jeffrey.

Fstein, Okay, well.

He's he's he said he regrets those and he's spent. He spent. He spent a lot. He spent a lot of his own money on on philanthropy around the world over the years. My question to you is have you looked at the data to check if he might be right that the cuts to U S A I D might cost millions of lives.

Yes, I'd like him to shore us any any evidence whatsoever that that is true.

It's false.

The what we're found with US A D cuts and by the way, they have an open cut. The parts of the U S A D that were found to be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the stage department. So they've not been deleted, they've soerly been transferred to the stage department. But many many times over with USA D and other organizations. When we've when they said, oh, well this is going to help you know, children, or it's going to help some UH disease eradication or something

We get nothing. We don't they don't even try to prevent show. We should come up with a with a show orphan meaning like it's sort of like, well, can we at least see a few kids, like where are they if they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to them and talk to their caregivers. And then we get a thing as a.

Response because it's what we find is an enormous amount of fraud and graft.

Okay, I put this example.

Very little actually gets to the kids, if anything at all.

Okay, let me put this example to you because you grew up in South Africa, so you will know the impact of HIV AIDS well. And this is why I asked about the data the US led on international efforts to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention. And there's an initiative called pepfile, which is credited with saving twenty six million lives in the last twenty years. It was part of the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver.

First of all, the program, the AIDS Medication program, is continuing, so your fun moree premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now, do you have another example, not in.

Its entire not in its entirety the program there's a limited waiver, and UNAIDS have said that not all of the services that were previously funded by USA IDEA continuing. So that's that's why, that's why I put that example to you.

Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded? I'll fix it.

Right now for okay. Well, actually they're all on the un unaid's website, so you'll be able to see them, but mostly they are to deal with Mostly they are to do with prevention, and for example, the rollout of a drug called Lennard kappavir, which was hailed as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years, which came out last year. So if you are perhaps, I'm sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to look at that again.

Yes, well, if in fact this is true, which I doubt it is, then we'll fix it.

Okay, fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered whether you have decided yet how much you're going to spend on the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent a lot more money on the last US election than you envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago. Are you going to continue to spend at that kind of level on future elections?

I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future.

And why is that?

I think I've done enough?

Is it because of blowback?

Well? If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. An I currently serieson.

What about political influence beyond the US? How often do you speak to President Putin.

I don't speak to President Putin.

You've never spoken to President Putin.

I was on a video caller with him once about five years ago. That's the only that's the speaks President Putin. Oh you must I get it.

Actually, i've heard you. I've heard you speak about it. For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh, I challenged President Putin to to was it an arm wrestle? And I know the Wall Street Journalist reported your reported conversations. If you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once, I'll take that as read.

Is there a worse publication on the face of the earth than the Wall Street Journal I wouldn't use that to lign up my cage for paragraphics that that that newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's and you know, if there's one newspaper that should be pro capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name. But it isn't.

So I have the very lowest opinion of the Wall Street Journal. Absolute answers.

And you clearly have believed the tripe that you've written, that you've read in those papers.

I read, I read very widely, and I'm putting these questions to you so that you have an opportunity to respond to them, which you are and for which we're all grateful to hear. Your response is, okay, we are. We are out of time.

So you mentioned challenging. I did so on the X platform. I challenged Vladimir Putin to single over the I didn't talk to him.

That was a post on the X platform.

That's why. That's why I asked you, and you've and you've clarified and explained, thank you. That's that's why I was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and you've said you have a dot of videos.

Okay, legacy media lize.

Okay, listen. I actually thought I might give Grock the last word, because when I asked Rock what your hardest challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high stake ventures and made financial, regulatory and public relations crises. And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether you do think that this is a pivotal year in your life.

Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's no different.

So I mean, in terms of interesting things that probably our accomplish this year the getting Starship to be fully reusable, so that we catch both the booster and the ship, which will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever in history, which will be a profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make life multiplanetary and ultimately become

The I think what's.

Running on the AI front, we are close to what you might call a g I or or digital superintelligence, and I think we'll see we are seeing an explosion in digital super intelligence here. And then we've got at Tesla, the what we'll be launching ancuvised autonomy basically self driving cars with no one.

In them in Austin next month. So It's a big year for sure.

Many other things on the in the works too.

I'm technologists first and foremost Elon Musk.

Thank you very much for joining us here at Cutter Economic Forum. Thank you.

This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gera. This conversation was part of the Bloomberg Weekend Interview, where host Michelle Hussain will talk to influential voices in politics, business and culture from around the globe. You'll be able to find Michelle's new Weekend interview series at Bloomberg dot com, slash Weekend, or in the Bloomberg Gap. The Government of the State of Cutter is the underwriter of the Cutter Economic Forum, powered by Bloomberg Special thanks to Jessica bec