Europe is our weakest market. We're stronger everywhere else, so our sales are 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 caps, 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 your in Europe.
Okay, and yes, but that's that's true of all manufacturers. There's no except questions.
Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Does that mean you're quite weak?
Okay, but you would acknowledge when 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 aspiration national brand. People identified with it, it saw it, they saw it as being at the forefront of the climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers in their car 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 perths on the left, but we've gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this point are strong, and if we've seen no problem with them.
Mad So what I mean?
You can just look at the stock price if you want the best insider information. The stock market analysts have that and stock wouldn't be trading near all time eyes if it was not. If things weren't, 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 are 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 I'm dead? So slight?
Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any bearing on your decision?
Well that's not really Sorry 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 activist 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 dollar 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 causplaying a judge in a Halloween costume.
Okay, that's your characterization. I think the 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 boarding control such that I cannot be ousted by activists investors is what matters 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 if we building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. I can't be sitting there and one going to get tossed out by for political
reasons by activists. That would be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now, let's move on.
Okay, Well just one question, move on, 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 re great? Any of you all think twice about your political endeavors because it is I I.
Did what needed to be done, uh, the violent antibody reaction, and I'm just 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 pointocent person's car, to threaten to kill me. What
strong are 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 showrooms, but I.
Think, well, it's into showrooms and burning down cars is 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 or 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 format. And some of the legacy media and nonelests have sort of justified, which is unconscionable. Shame on them.
Let's talk about your other companies. Then, in other business areas, 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?
You certainly 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 its terminals. So SpaceX has a 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 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 Walls have ever seen by far, So I think at this point about maybe approaching eight percent of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX and they're providing high high mad with global connectvity throughout the world.
In fact, this connection is on a SpaceX connection. So I think this is a very good thing because it means that we can provide low cost by bandwidth internet to pass the world if don't have it or it's very expensive. And I think the single biggest thing you can do to look 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 we want to 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, with Starlink
and getting it to approved in their country. And I think it's doing a lot of good in the countries that have a pret of it, which is I think this point one hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it. I don't currently into space space actually getting into the weapons business. That's something that's not an aspiration we're freaquent. We're frequently asked to do to do weapons programs, but we have justified a client.
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, no, 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 really something needs to be done about the share shareholder shareholder at road of lawsuits in the US because it allows plaintiff's law firms who don't represent the shareholders to pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet plaintiff with a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuits 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 will still continue. So how can it be a class action representing a class if the class were against it? And that's the bizarre situation with Ground in the US that needs it's a diary to perform as anyone's running 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 alnk Ipo.
Well, we need, we need a law to be passed. The trouble being that you need sixty Senate Senate voters and the Democrats will vote against it. The the the plaintiff's bar is I believe, the second and largest contributor
to the Democratic Party. That's that's the issue. At the state level, this can be solved, and I should say Texas recently passed a law which at at least the state level made Yes, it's much more reasonable because you have to get at least one in thirty three shareholders to agree that they are part of a class of shareholders three. This is a This will be really helped with privilege lawsuits.
Okay, let's talk about AI, which is in so many of your businessnesses 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
and Sam Altman. I wonder if you could say something about the status of that, because you were together in Saudi Arabia with the president last week, with Sam Altman in the same place at the same time.
In the neighborhood.
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 I 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 reserve 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 funded. That's opening eye.
They've made some changes to their call for instructure, though, haven't they since in recognition of of what you've said?
Now that's just what they told the media.
Okay, 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, Well, that's that's
certainly 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 Nickolthway, 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 cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your view changed on the need for an AI regulator?
Well, that that I don't think there should be regulator. Is you 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 kick the ball without hitting one. So in many and most fields in the US, that 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 appreciate this. This is 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 of a truly absurd situation under the Biden administration, Space EFFX was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now, the problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itard in National Traffic and Arms regulations to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of the United States, because the preface being that they will take advanced rocket technology and return to their home country if they're not a
permanent resident. So we're simultaneously in a situation where it's illegal to hire simul science use and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the Widen's Departner of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths being illegal. Down if you do, Down if you don't.
My question 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. No, of course not. What I'm saying is that there should be summer recently on the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam packed with referees, uh that such that you cannot kick the 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
fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated. In fact, there is no regulator.
At all, so they should be. Do you still think.
That, Yes, I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic common sense, 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 any given arena, industrial arena, to ensure help that public safety is taking care of of But you already has. So there's a there's a
there's a proper number of referees. Like I said, it's actually very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If the whole field is packed with referees, that would look absurd. But if there were no referees at all, your game is not going to be as good.
Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your 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 insight does knowledge of it because of those 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 in throughout history and the US goverment and others who have had economic interests, and I am silutely 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 any 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 if
if I hadn't mentioned it something, my competitors would. So if you're not seeing that, then the cliller is not a complex of 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 is we review the organization to see if 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 may make recommendations to the secretary. The secretary can I 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 got at doge handle on the x platform. So it's it's complete tran transparency. And I have not seen any a case where where so that's my large it's even been an accusation of conflict because it is completely and utterly transparent. That's it.
And what about the international dimension. Now, let's think about Starlink. Starlink 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
to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So bloomberat It broke news today that the South African government is working around the rules on black ownership in order to allow starlinkin and that is being done on the eve of the visit the President Ramaposa is going to make the White House. Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest?
Now? Of course, first of all, you should be questioning why is there why are the racist laws in Africa? That's the first problem. That's what you should be attacking. It's improper for the racist laws in South Africa. The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, who is a great man, proposed, was that all races should be on an equal footing. Is South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not to replace one set of racist laws, but another set
of racist laws which is ubslutely wrong and improper. So that's that's the deal, that all races should be treated 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 that basically gives strong preference to to if you're 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 operate installing because I'm not black. Well, it looks it looks looks like that, right, it 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 interview. Everyone wants to hear from.
You, yes or no.
Not for me, Not for me to answer. I have got a question for you about about your government work and the amount of savings raceless loves. This is not for me to answer. Come on, now, you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.
Question answer you answer?
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 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 doses work. Before the election, you said it was going to be at least two trillion. The number currently on dose DOGARV is one hundred and seventy billion dollars. That's a big change. What happened to the two trillion.
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 episode in this fundamental premise? Are you assuming that on day you know, within a few months this 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 amount of time? Have we not made good progress given the amount of time?
That's exactly what I'm asking. So is it 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 doesn't quit. 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 we've made thus far I think is incredible. Those teams do incredible work, but the magnitude of the savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress and from the executive branch of the government in general.
So we're not the dictators. We are the advisors. But thus far, for advisors with the DOG 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 I think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government is a very good thing, but if you add that up, is not going to get to two trillion over the lifetime of DOG. I'm sorry, the four billion, the four billion a day, if those are 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 fail? You're somewhat trapped in the NPC dialogue tree of a traditional book journalist, so it's difficult when when I'm conversing with someone who's trapped the dialogue of a conventional journalist because it's like talking to a computer. So, uh, doge is 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 we do not make the laws, nor do we control the the judiciary, nor do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors. In that context, we're doing very well. Beyond that, we cannot we cannot take action beyond that because we are
not some sort of imperial dictator of the government. There are three branches of government that that art some degree opposed to that level of cost savings. Unless let's let's let's not criticize whether there's a four trillion. Instead look at the fact that our sixty billion has been saved and more. We say too.
And as I said, I think everyone can agree that cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible with taxpace money is a very good thing. So yes, I can see, I can see that you're proud of that work. I do want to ask you about USAID and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day, which I and I know that you called himim. I know you've said that already.
I wanted and I'm just who does Biggs think he is to make comments about the welfare of children, given that he is before quent to Jeffreystein.
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 pursure us any any evidence whatsoever that that is true. It's false. The what we're found with US cuts and by the way, they haven't an open cut. The of the U s a D that we found to be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the Stage Profits, so they've not been deleted. They've
cerly been transferred to the stage department. But many many times over with U SAD 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 like that. And then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever, I say, well, please connect us with this group of children so we can talk to them and understand more about their issue. We get nothing. We don't We don't even try to prevent a 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.
I put this example.
Very little actually gets of it, kiuse 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 pet File 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.
Its services are disrupted, and unaid says if permanly discontinued, there will be another four million AIDS related deaths by twenty twenty nine. So if you look at that example, which is backed up by data. In twenty twenty three, six hundred and thirty thousand people died of AIDS related illnesses, then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of lives could be lost.
First of all, the program, the AIDS medication program, is continuing, so your fund moral premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now, do you have another example.
Not in its entirety, 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 glenna 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 UNA's would be delighted if you're able to look at that again.
Yes, but well, if if in fact this is true, which I doubt it is, then we'll affix 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 currently serious.
What about political influence beyond the US? How often do you speak to President.
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 president.
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 uh to was it an arm wrestle? And I know the Wall Street Journal has 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 tolign up my cage for paragraphics that that that newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's you know, if there's one newspaper that should be pro capitalist, it's the one of Wall Street in the name, But it isn't. So I have the very lowest opinion of the Wall
Street Journal. Absolutely answers, and you clearly have believed the tripe that you've written, that you've written newspapers 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 it challenging. I did so on on the X platform. I challenged Vladimir put 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 clorified and explained. Thank you. That's that's why I was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and you said, we have a.
Okay, legacy media lize.
Okay, listen. I thought I might give Grock the last word because when I asked Groc what your hardest challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high stake ventures made financial regulatory in 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 has been somewhat piddle, and this one's no different. So in terms of interesting things that probably our accomplish, this here there getting starships two be fully reusable, so that we catch both the booster and the ship, which will be the first fully reusable or little rocket ever in history, which would be a profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make multi planetarian ultimately become a
space bearing civilization. We've got neural link which is now helped by patients restore capability using the left of the implant, where they're able to control a computer simply by thinking. We'll be doing our first patient to restore blank just restore to restore site with our blind site implant, which is the end of this year early next. In fact, that that first patient might be in the U a E. Since we have a relationship with you a E and
the Cleveland Clinic clinic there. The I think what's running on the AI front, we are close to what you might call a g I or or or digital super intelligence, and I think we'll see that we are seeing an explosion in digital superintelligence here. And then we've got to HESLA, the what will be launching anti based autonomy basically self driving cars with no one in them in Austin next month. So it's it's a big year for sure. Many other
things on the in the in the works too. Okay, I'm a technologist first and foremost.
Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here at Cutter Economic Forum. Thank you