Elon Musk Talks Tesla, Politics and Putin Relationship (Full Interview)

[0:01] Please welcome to the forum, Elon Musk, for a conversation with Bloomberg's Michelle Hussain. [0:16] Hello, everyone. And Elon Musk, welcome to Qatar Economic Forum. How are you? [0:21] Thank you for having me. I'm fine. How are you? [0:24] Very well, thank you. And very pleased to have you with us. [0:26] You know, among those here in the audience in Doha are some you will know, [0:30] people who have backed you financially over the years. [0:34] Since you last spoke here in 2022, a lot has changed in your life. [0:38] You're not only running multiple companies, you were doing that then, [0:41] but now you also have a role in government. [0:43] So, first of all, I hope you won't mind if from time to time I have to move you from one topic to another [0:48] because we have a lot to cover in the time we have. That will be all right? [0:53] Okay. Well, let's start then with exactly the fact that you now have this combination [0:57] of being a CEO and having a role as a government advisor. [1:01] Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's the split of your time? [1:06] Well, I travel a lot. [1:09] So... [1:09] I was in Silicon Valley yesterday morning. I was in L.A. yesterday evening. [1:16] I'm in Austin right now. I'll be in D.C. tomorrow. [1:20] I'll be there having dinner with the president tomorrow night, I believe. [1:24] And then a bunch of cabinet secretary meetings and then back to Silicon Valley on Thursday night. [1:33] But I mean the balance of your time. [1:36] It's a lot. [1:36] Is it? Well, clearly it's a lot. [1:38] But is it still the case, as you said a while ago, that it's about one [1:41] to two days a week on your government work? [1:44] Yeah, that's correct. [1:46] And what does that mean for your corporate life? [1:50] Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered in recent months what you've called blowback. [1:57] So what is your plan for turning that around, the declining sales picture? [2:03] And by what stage do you think you're going to be able to turn it around? [2:08] Oh, it's already turned around. [2:12] Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking at the sales figures. [2:15] What do you think is the biggest weakness for Europe in April, which show very significant declines in the big markets? [2:23] Europe is our weakest market. We're strong everywhere else. [2:27] So our sales are doing well at this point. [2:31] We don't anticipate any meaningful sales shortfall. [2:35] And obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're now back over a trillion dollars in market cap. [2:46] So clearly the market is aware of the situation. [2:49] It's already turned around. [2:50] But sales still down compared to this time last year? [2:54] In Europe. [2:55] In Europe, okay. [2:56] Yes, but that's true of all manufacturers. There's no exceptions. [3:04] Does that mean that you're not going to be able... [3:06] The European stock market is quite weak. [3:09] Okay. But you would acknowledge, wouldn't you, that what you are facing... [3:13] Okay, let's just take it as Europe. [3:15] What you are facing is a significant problem. [3:17] This Tesla is an incredibly aspirational brand. [3:20] People identified with it. [3:22] They saw it as being at the forefront of the climate crisis. [3:25] And now people are driving around with stickers in their cars saying, [3:28] I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy. [3:31] And there are also people who are buying it because Elon is crazy or however they may view it. [3:39] So, yes, we've lost some sales perhaps on the left, but we've gained them on the right. [3:43] The sales numbers at this point are strong. [3:46] And we see no problem with demand. [3:49] So what do you... [3:50] I mean, you can just look at the stock price. [3:53] If you want the best inside information, the stock market analysts have that. [4:00] And our stock wouldn't be trading near all-time highs if things weren't in good shape. [4:08] They're fine. Don't worry about it. [4:10] I was citing sales figures rather than share price. [4:13] Well, tell me then how committed you are to Tesla. [4:16] Do you see yourself and are you committed to still being the chief executive of Tesla in five years' time? [4:22] Yes. [4:25] No doubt about that at all? [4:30] Well, no, I might die. [4:34] Okay, short of that. [4:36] I can't even see if I'm dead. [4:38] So there's a slight amount of doubt. [4:40] Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any bearing on your decision? [4:49] Well, that's not really a subject for discussion in this forum. [4:54] I think obviously there should be compensation for... [5:01] If something incredible is done, the compensation should match. [5:04] That something incredible was done. [5:08] But I'm confident that whatever some activist posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not affect the future compensation. [5:19] This is the judge who twice struck down the $56 billion pay package that was awarded to you. [5:27] I think the value on the basis... [5:29] On the current value of stock options. [5:31] Not a judge. [5:33] Not a judge. [5:34] Who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume. [5:39] Okay, that's your characterization. [5:42] I think on the current value of stock options, I think the actual... [5:45] Judges dispense justice according to the law. [5:47] On the current value of stock options, I think the value of that pay package stands at about $100 billion. [5:53] Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of your future pay package? [5:58] Your decision to be committed to Tesla for the next five years, as long as you are still with us on this planet, [6:05] is completely independent of pay? [6:07] No. [6:11] It's not independent. [6:12] So pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla. [6:16] A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted by activist investors is what matters to me. [6:25] And I've said this publicly many times. [6:27] But let's not have this whole thing be a discussion of my alleged pay. [6:31] It's not a money thing. [6:32] It's a reasonable control thing over the future of the company, especially if we're building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. [6:39] I can't be sitting there and wanting to get tossed out for political reasons by activists. [6:46] That would be unacceptable. [6:48] That's all that matters. [6:49] Now let's move on. [6:50] Okay. [6:51] Well, just one question. [6:52] Now let's move on. [6:53] Well, one question before we move on to other companies, which is that I wonder if some of what has happened to Tesla in the last few months, [7:03] did you take it personally? [7:06] Yes. [7:08] And did it make you regret any of... [7:10] Or think twice about your political... [7:11] Or think twice about your political endeavors? [7:13] Because it is... [7:23] I did what needed to be done. [7:26] The violent antibody reaction... [7:31] And I'm not someone who's ever committed violence. [7:34] And yet massive violence was committed against my companies. [7:39] Massive violence was threatened against me. [7:41] Who are these people? [7:43] Why would they do that? [7:44] How wrong can they be? [7:48] They're on the wrong side of history. [7:50] And that's an evil thing to do, [7:53] to go and damage some innocent person's car, [7:58] to threaten to kill me. [8:01] What's wrong with these people? [8:03] I've not harmed anyone. [8:08] So something needs to be done about them. [8:10] And a number of them are going to prison. [8:12] And they deserve it. [8:14] And more will. [8:16] You're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms. [8:20] But I think... [8:21] Yeah. [8:22] Bullets into showrooms and burning down cars is unacceptable. [8:26] Those people will go to prison. [8:27] And the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison. [8:30] Don't worry. [8:31] We're coming for you. [8:32] But wouldn't you acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla in Europe [8:43] were upset at your politics? [8:47] And very few of them would have been violent in any way. [8:50] They just objected to what they saw you say or do politically. [8:55] Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things. [8:59] But it's not fine to resort to violence and hanging someone in effigy and death threats. [9:05] That's obviously not okay. [9:07] You know, that's absurd. [9:11] That is in no way justifiable at all in any way, shape, or form. [9:17] And some of the legacy media nonetheless have sought to justify it, which is unconscionable. [9:22] Shame on them. [9:23] Let's talk about your other companies then and other business areas. [9:27] SpaceX. [9:28] I saw that you said in a speech at the West Point Military Academy recently that the future [9:34] of warfare is AI and drones. [9:37] And obviously, defense is an increasingly important area. [9:39] It's an increasingly booming sector with the state of the world at the moment. [9:45] Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones? [9:54] You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer. [10:01] So SpaceX is the space launch leader. [10:08] So SpaceX doesn't do drones. [10:10] SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and internet terminals. [10:15] So SpaceX has a very dominant position in space launch. [10:22] So of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably do 90 percent. [10:30] China will do half of the remaining amount, so 5 percent. [10:35] And the rest of the world, including the rest of the U.S., will do about 5 percent. [10:38] So SpaceX will do about 10 times as much as the rest of the world combined or 20 times [10:41] as much as China, which is – and China is doing actually a very impressive job. [10:45] The reason for this is that we are – [10:47] we are putting into orbit the largest satellite constellation the world has ever seen by far. [10:52] So I think at this point, about maybe approaching 80 percent of all active satellites in orbit [10:59] are SpaceX. [11:01] And they're providing high bandwidth level connectivity throughout the world. [11:05] In fact, this connection is on a SpaceX connection. [11:09] So I think this is a very good thing because it means that we can provide low-cost, high-bandwidth [11:16] internet to parts of the world that don't have it or where it's very expensive. [11:19] And I think the single biggest thing you can do to lift people out of poverty and help [11:24] them is giving them an internet connection. [11:27] Because once you have the internet connection, you can learn anything for free on the internet. [11:32] And you can also sell your goods and services to the global market. [11:36] And once you have knowledge via the internet and the ability to engage in commerce, [11:45] this is going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world. [11:49] And it has. [11:52] And I'd just like to thank anyone in the audience who may have been helpful in, you know, [11:57] with Starlink and getting it approved in their country. [12:00] And I think it's doing a lot of good in the countries that have approved it, which is, [12:03] I think at this point, 130 countries are very happy with it. [12:07] I don't currently anticipate SpaceX getting into the weapons business. [12:11] That's certainly – it's not an aspiration. [12:13] We're frequently asked to do weapons programs, but we have thus far declined. [12:19] Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed Starlink as a separate entity publicly listing in the near future or at all? [12:32] It's possible that Starlink may go public at some point in the future. [12:38] And what would be the timeframe? [12:41] What kind of timeframe are you considering? [12:44] I'm in no rush. [12:45] I'm in no rush to go public. [12:48] You know, public is, I guess, a way to, you know, potentially make more money. [12:55] It's expensive, a lot of public company overhead, and inevitably a whole bunch of lawsuits, [13:01] which are very annoying. [13:03] So really something needs to be done about the shareholder derivative lawsuits in the U.S. [13:09] because it allows plaintiffs' law firms who don't represent the shareholders [13:16] to pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet plaintiff with a few shares [13:21] to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company. [13:24] And that's the kind of thing that we're seeing, that extreme irony, [13:28] that even if the class they purport to represent were to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, [13:35] the lawsuit would still continue. [13:37] So how can it be a class action representing a class if the class were to vote against it? [13:41] And that's the bizarre situation we've got in the U.S. [13:44] It's a dire need of reform. [13:46] As anyone who's run a public company, you've experienced this. [13:50] It's an absurd situation that needs to change. [13:52] Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it? [13:54] God is here. I imagine that you've put this to him. [13:57] Is this something you're trying to change before any Starlink IPO? [14:01] Well, it would need a law to be passed. [14:07] The trouble being that you need 60 Senate votes, [14:12] and the Democrats will vote against it. [14:15] The plaintiff's bar is, I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party. [14:26] That's the issue. [14:27] At the state level, this can be solved. [14:29] And I should say, Texas recently passed a law which, [14:34] at least at the state level, made lawsuits much more reasonable [14:39] because you have to get at least 1 in 33 shareholders to agree [14:42] that they are part of a class of shareholders, 3%. [14:48] This will really help with frivolous lawsuits. [14:52] Let's talk about AI, which is in so many of your businesses [14:59] and in all our worlds in different ways. [15:02] It's one of the big changes, the development of generative AI, [15:06] since you last spoke to this forum three years ago. [15:10] You're in this space, of course, with Grok, which almost everyone will know. [15:14] You co-founded OpenAI and then left, [15:16] and you've obviously got a legal battle with OpenAI and Sam Altman. [15:21] I wonder if you could say something about the status of that, [15:24] because you were together in Saudi Arabia with the president last week, [15:28] with Sam Altman, in the same place at the same time. [15:32] Sam was in the neighborhood. [15:35] Does that mean you are pushing ahead with the lawsuit against OpenAI? [15:43] Yes. I came up with the name OpenAI as an open source and as a nonprofit. [15:50] And I funded OpenAI for the first roughly $50 million. [15:57] And it was intended to be a nonprofit open source company. [16:02] And now they're trying to change that [16:04] for their own financial benefit into a for-profit company that is closed source. [16:10] So this would be like, let's say you funded a nonprofit to help preserve the Amazon rainforest. [16:18] But instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, [16:21] chopped down the forest and sold the wood. [16:23] You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I funded. That's OpenAI. [16:27] They've made some changes to their corporate structure, though, haven't they, since? [16:31] In recognition of what you've said. [16:34] No, that's just what they told the media. [16:39] OK. [16:43] They have partly walked back their plan to restructure the business. [16:49] I guess that's made no difference to how you feel about it. [16:52] So you're determined to see them in court? [16:55] Of course. [16:56] Well, that's certainly going to be one to watch. [16:58] I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation. [17:01] Because when you were here last, talking to John Micklethwaite, [17:04] you had some pretty strong words about the risk that AI poses. [17:09] And you said that you really feel, [17:11] what the US was missing was a federal AI regulator. [17:15] That, you know, something along the lines of the Food and Drug Administration [17:19] or the Federal Aviation Administration. [17:21] Now, you're clearly now in a zone where you're more on the cutting regulation side [17:26] than wanting new regulators. [17:28] So has your view changed on the need for an AI regulator? [17:31] Well, it's not that I don't think there should be regulators. [17:36] You can think of regulators like referees on the field in sports. [17:40] There should be some number of referees, [17:42] but you shouldn't have so many referees that you can't kick the ball without hitting one. [17:46] So in most fields in the US, [17:52] the regulatory burden has grown over time [17:55] to the point where it's like having more referees than players on the field. [18:01] And this is a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity. [18:06] It's very important to appreciate this. [18:08] This has happened throughout history. [18:10] When you have an extended period of prosperity [18:13] with no existential war, [18:15] there's no cleansing function for unnecessary laws and regulations. [18:23] So what happens is that every year, [18:25] more laws and more regulations are passed [18:28] because legislators are going to legislate, [18:32] regulators are going to regulate. [18:34] And you will get the steady pile of more and more laws and regulations over time [18:39] until everything is illegal. [18:43] And let me give you an example [18:44] of a truly absurd situation. [18:47] Under the Biden administration, [18:49] SpaceX was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. [18:55] Now, the problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX [18:59] under ITAR, International Traffic and Arms Regulations, [19:02] to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of the United States [19:06] because the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology [19:10] and return to their home country if they're not a permanent resident. [19:13] So we're simultaneously in a situation [19:16] where it is illegal to hire asylum seekers [19:18] and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers. [19:22] And the Biden's Department of Justice [19:25] chose to prosecute us despite both paths being illegal. [19:29] Damned if you do, damned if you don't. [19:31] But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI, [19:35] which you said three years ago was needed. [19:37] And you said we need to be proactive on the regulation of AI rather than reactive. [19:42] Have you changed your mind on that? [19:43] No, of course not. [19:46] No, of course not. [19:48] What I'm saying is that there should be some referees on the field, [19:52] a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam-packed with referees [19:57] such that you could not kick a ball in any direction without hitting one. [20:00] So the fields that have been around for a long time, [20:04] such as automotive, aerospace, [20:08] you know, the sort of food and drug industries, [20:12] are over-regulated. [20:15] But the new fields, like artificial intelligence, [20:18] are under-regulated. [20:20] In fact, there is no regulator at all. [20:22] So there should be one. Do you still think that? [20:24] Yes, I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic common sense, [20:29] that you want to have, at least, [20:31] you want to have a few referees in the field. [20:33] You don't want to have an army of referees. [20:36] But you want to have a few referees on any given field, [20:39] in any given sport, or in any given arena, [20:42] industrial arena, [20:44] to ensure that public safety is taken care of. [20:48] But you don't want to have... [20:50] So there's a proper number of referees. [20:54] Like I said, it's actually very easy to visualise this [20:56] when compared to sports. [20:58] If the whole field is packed with referees, [21:00] that would look absurd. [21:02] But if there were no referees at all, [21:04] your game's not going to be as good. [21:06] OK, so let's then talk about your new world, [21:10] your role advising government. [21:12] You are in this unique, [21:14] and unprecedented position [21:16] of having billions of dollars' worth [21:18] of contracts with the federal government [21:20] yourself, mostly through SpaceX, [21:22] and also now an insider's knowledge of it [21:24] because of Doge. [21:26] Can you see [21:28] that there is a conflict of interest, [21:31] or a potential conflict of interest [21:33] in broad terms, just through that very fact? [21:35] I don't think so, actually. [21:38] There have been many advisers [21:40] throughout history, [21:42] in the US government and others, [21:44] who have had economic interest [21:46] and I am simply [21:48] an adviser. [21:50] I don't have formal power. [21:52] And that's it. [21:54] The President can choose to accept [21:56] my advice or not, [21:58] and that's how it goes. [22:00] If there's a single contract that [22:02] any of my companies have received [22:04] that people think is somehow [22:06] was awarded improperly, [22:09] it would immediately be [22:11] front-page news, [22:13] to say the least. [22:15] And if I didn't mention it, [22:17] then certainly my competitors would. [22:19] So if you're not seeing that, [22:21] then clearly there's not a conflict of interest. [22:25] There's another way, though, [22:27] to look at it. [22:29] For example, you have many competitors, [22:31] whether it's companies like Boeing [22:33] or companies who would like to do more [22:35] of the kind of work you do for NASA, [22:37] Blue Origin, Rocket Lab. [22:39] And because Doge is in every [22:41] federal government department, [22:43] you, or people who work for Doge, [22:45] and you are the driving force [22:47] behind it, [22:49] have an insight into those companies' [22:51] affairs and those companies' relationships [22:53] with the federal government. [22:57] All we do is we [22:59] review the organization [23:01] to see if the organization has [23:03] departments [23:06] that are no longer relevant. [23:08] And [23:10] are the contracts that are being [23:12] awarded good value for money? [23:14] In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. [23:16] Is there any value for money in a contract? [23:18] And if there's [23:20] none, then we make recommendations [23:22] to the Secretary. [23:24] The Secretary can then choose to [23:26] take those actions or not take those actions. [23:28] And that's it. And then any action [23:30] that is a function of Doge [23:32] is posted to the Doge website [23:34] and to doge.gov [23:36] or at Doge handle [23:38] on the X platform. [23:40] So it's complete transparency. [23:42] And I have not seen any [23:44] case where, [23:46] to the best of my knowledge, [23:48] there's even been an accusation of conflict. [23:50] It's completely and utterly transparent. [23:52] That's it. [23:54] And what about the international dimension? [23:56] Now, let's think about Starlink. [23:58] Starlink is obviously a very, very good [24:00] internet service. It's sought after [24:02] all over the world. It's critical to the [24:04] front line in Ukraine. [24:06] It has also had more contracts [24:08] coming its way. And there is some evidence [24:10] that companies are allowing access [24:12] to it because they want [24:14] to be close to the Trump administration [24:16] and send the right signal. [24:18] So Bloomberg broke news today that the South African [24:20] government is working around the rules [24:22] on black ownership in order to allow [24:24] Starlink in. And that is being done [24:26] on the eve of the visit [24:28] that President Ramaphosa is going to make [24:30] to the White House. Do you recognize [24:33] that as a conflict of interest? [24:35] No, of course not. First of all, you should be [24:37] questioning, why are there racist laws [24:39] in South Africa? That's the first problem. [24:41] That's what you should be attacking. [24:43] It's improper for there to be racist laws [24:45] in South Africa. [24:47] The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, [24:49] who is a great man, proposed was that [24:51] all races should be on an equal footing [24:53] in South Africa. That's the right thing to do. [24:55] Not to replace one set of racist laws [24:57] with another set of racist laws, which is [24:59] utterly wrong and improper. [25:01] So that's [25:03] the deal. That all races [25:05] should be treated equally, and [25:07] there should be no preference given to one or the other. [25:09] Whereas there are now [25:12] 140 laws in South Africa that give [25:14] that basically [25:16] give [25:18] strong preference to [25:20] if you're a black South African. [25:22] Not otherwise. [25:24] Now I'm in this absurd situation where I was born in South Africa [25:26] but can't get a license to operate [25:28] in Starlink because I'm not black. [25:30] Does that seem right to you? [25:32] Does that seem right to you? [25:34] It looks like that's about to change. [25:37] I just ask you a question. Please answer. [25:39] Does that seem right to you? [25:41] Well, those rules were designed to [25:43] bring about [25:45] an era of more economic [25:47] equality in South Africa. [25:49] And it looks like the government [25:51] has found a way around those rules for you. [25:53] I'll ask you a question. [25:56] This is your interview. [25:58] Everyone wants to hear from you. [26:00] I'll ask you a question. Yes or no? [26:02] Not for me to answer. [26:04] I have got a question for you [26:06] about your government work [26:08] and the amount of savings. [26:10] Why do you like racist laws? [26:14] This is not for me to answer. Come on. [26:16] Now you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question [26:18] that is difficult for you to answer. [26:20] No, you answer mine. [26:22] I think if you [26:24] I'm sure you can have that conversation directly [26:26] if you want to. [26:28] I want to ask you about the total [26:30] I can't believe it. That's not good. [26:32] I want to ask you about the total amount [26:34] I want to ask you about the total amount [26:36] that you're planning to save through Doge's work. [26:38] Before the election you said it was going to be [26:40] at least two trillion. [26:42] The number currently on doge.gov [26:44] is 170 billion dollars. [26:46] That's a big change. [26:48] What happened to the two trillion? [26:50] Would you expect it to happen immediately? [26:53] Well, is it going to happen? [26:55] Because Doge is supposed to run until next July. [26:57] Your question is absurd [26:59] in its fundamental premise. [27:01] Are you assuming that [27:03] within a few months [27:05] an instant two trillion saved? [27:08] No, I'm not at all. I'm just asking [27:10] is that still your aim? [27:12] Have we not made good progress [27:14] given the amount of time? [27:18] That's exactly what I'm asking. [27:20] Is it still your aim to go from 170 billion [27:22] to two trillion? [27:25] The ability of Doge [27:27] to operate is as functional [27:29] as the ability of the government [27:31] and this includes Congress [27:33] is willing to take our advice. [27:35] We're not the dictators of the government [27:38] we are the advisors. [27:40] And so we can advise [27:43] and the progress we've made thus far [27:45] I think is incredible. [27:47] The Doge team has done incredible work. [27:49] But the magnitude of [27:51] the savings [27:53] is proportionate to the support [27:55] we get from Congress [27:57] and from the executive branch [27:59] of the government in general. [28:02] So we're not the dictators [28:04] we are the advisors. [28:07] But thus far, for advisors [28:09] the Doge team [28:11] to their credit [28:13] has made incredible progress. [28:16] You've talked about four billion [28:18] dollars a day being saved [28:20] but that won't get [28:23] and I think everyone can agree [28:25] that combating waste [28:27] and inefficiency in government [28:29] is a very good thing [28:31] but if you add that up [28:33] it's not going to get to two trillion over the lifetime of Doge. [28:39] The four billion a day [28:41] if Doge is going to run until next July [28:43] is not going to get you to [28:45] two trillion dollars. [28:49] But you still say it's your aim [28:51] so we'll take that as read. [28:55] There's what Doge [28:57] I feel you're somewhat trapped in [28:59] the NPC dialogue tree [29:01] of a traditional journalist. [29:03] So it's difficult [29:05] when I'm conversing with someone [29:07] who's trapped in the dialogue tree [29:09] of a conventional journalist [29:11] because it's like talking to a computer. [29:13] Doge is an advisory group. [29:16] We are doing the best we can [29:18] as an advisory group. [29:20] The progress made thus far [29:22] as an advisory group is excellent. [29:24] I don't think any advisory group [29:26] has done better in the history [29:28] of advisory groups of the government. [29:30] We do not make the laws [29:32] nor do we control [29:34] the judiciary [29:36] nor do we control [29:38] the executive branch [29:40] we are simply advisors. [29:42] In that context we are doing very well. [29:44] We cannot take action beyond that [29:47] because we are not [29:49] some sort of imperial dictator [29:51] of the government. [29:53] There are three branches of the government [29:55] that are to some degree opposed [29:57] to that level of cost savings. [29:59] Nonetheless [30:01] let's not [30:03] criticize whether there's [30:05] four trillion [30:07] and instead look at the fact [30:09] that 160 billion has been saved [30:11] and more will be saved too. [30:14] And as I said I think everyone can agree [30:16] that there is a lot of [30:18] waste and indeed fraud [30:20] in any government [30:22] and being responsible with taxpayers money [30:25] is a very good thing. [30:27] So I can see [30:29] that you're proud of that work. [30:31] I do want to ask you about [30:33] USAID [30:35] and the comments that Bill Gates [30:37] made the other day [30:39] which I know that you called him [30:41] I know you've said that already [30:43] I wondered [30:45] Who does Bill Gates think he is [30:47] for his children [30:49] given that he frequented Jeffrey Epstein? [30:54] He said he regrets those [30:56] and he spent [30:58] a lot of his own money [31:00] on philanthropy [31:02] around the world over the years. [31:04] My question to you is [31:06] have you looked at the data [31:08] to check if he might be right [31:10] that the cuts to USAID [31:12] might cost millions of lives? [31:14] Yes [31:18] I'd like him to show us [31:20] any evidence whatsoever [31:22] that that is true or it's false. [31:24] What we found with USAID cuts [31:26] and by the way they haven't all been cut [31:28] the parts of USAID [31:30] that we found to be [31:32] even slightly useful [31:34] were transferred to the State Department [31:36] they've not been deleted [31:38] but many times over [31:40] with USAID and other organizations [31:42] when they said [31:44] this is going to help children [31:46] or it's going to help some [31:48] disease eradication [31:51] or something like that [31:53] and when we ask for any evidence whatsoever [31:55] I say please connect us [31:57] with this group of children [31:59] so we can talk to them [32:01] and understand more about their issue [32:04] we get nothing. [32:06] We don't even try to [32:08] come up with a show often [32:10] meaning like [32:12] can we at least see a few kids [32:14] where are they [32:16] if they're in trouble [32:18] we'd like to talk to them [32:20] and get something as a response [32:22] because what we find [32:24] is an enormous amount [32:26] of fraud and graft [32:28] and actually very little of it [32:30] actually gets to the kids [32:32] if anything at all. [32:34] Let me put this example to you [32:36] because you grew up in South Africa [32:38] so you'll know the impact of HIV AIDS well [32:40] and this is why I asked about the data [32:42] the US led on international efforts [32:44] to combat HIV AIDS [32:46] treatment, prevention [32:48] and there's an initiative called PEPFAR [32:50] which started with saving 26 million lives [32:52] in the last 20 years [32:54] it was part of the foreign aid freeze [32:56] then there was a limited waiver [32:58] its services are disrupted [33:00] and UNAIDS says [33:02] if permanently discontinued [33:04] there will be another 4 million AIDS related deaths [33:06] by 2029 [33:08] so if you look at that example [33:10] which is backed up by data [33:12] in 2023 [33:14] 630,000 people died [33:16] of AIDS related illnesses [33:18] then perhaps Bill Gates [33:20] figures are not wrong [33:22] millions of lives could be lost [33:24] first of all the program [33:26] the AIDS [33:28] medication [33:31] program [33:33] is continuing [33:35] so your fundamental premise is wrong [33:37] it is continuing [33:39] now do you have another example [33:41] not in its entirety [33:43] not in its entirety [33:45] there's a limited waiver [33:47] and UNAIDS [33:49] have said that not all of the services [33:51] that were previously funded by USAID [33:53] are continuing [33:55] so that's why I put that example to you [33:57] okay well which ones aren't being funded [33:59] I'll fix it right now [34:01] okay well [34:03] actually they're all on the UNAIDS [34:05] website so you'll be able to see them [34:07] but mostly they are to do with [34:09] mostly they are to do with prevention [34:11] and for example the rollout of a drug [34:13] called Lenacapavir [34:15] which was hailed as one of the biggest [34:17] breakthroughs against AIDS [34:19] for many years which came out last year [34:21] perhaps I'm sure UNAIDS [34:23] would be delighted if you're able to look at that again [34:25] yes [34:28] if in fact this is true which I doubt it is [34:30] then we'll fix it [34:32] so finally [34:35] political [34:37] your political influence [34:39] I wondered whether you have decided yet [34:41] how much you're going to spend [34:43] on the [34:45] upcoming midterms [34:47] is it [34:49] you spent a lot more money on the last US election [34:51] than you envisaged when you were speaking here [34:53] three years ago [34:55] are you going to continue to spend [34:57] at that kind of level on future elections [34:59] I think [35:04] in terms of political spending [35:07] I'm going to do a lot less in the future [35:09] and why is that [35:14] I think I've done enough [35:19] is it because of blowback [35:24] well if I see a reason to do political spending [35:26] in the future I will do it [35:28] I don't currently see a reason [35:30] what about political influence beyond the US [35:32] how often do you speak to President Putin [35:34] I don't speak to President Putin [35:39] you've never spoken to President Putin [35:42] I was on a video call with him once [35:44] about five years ago [35:46] that's the only time [35:48] why would you think I speak to President Putin [35:51] I get it [35:53] actually I've heard you speak about it [35:55] for example in your West Point speech [35:57] you said oh I challenged President Putin [35:59] to was it an arm wrestle [36:01] and I know the Wall Street Journal [36:03] has reported your [36:05] conversations if you're saying [36:07] they haven't happened other than once [36:09] I'll take that as read [36:11] if there's a publication on the face of the earth [36:13] in the Wall Street Journal [36:15] I wouldn't use that to line up my cage [36:17] for power truffles [36:20] that newspaper is the worst newspaper [36:22] in the world [36:24] and if there's one newspaper [36:26] that should be pro-capitalist [36:28] it's the one with Wall Street in the name [36:30] but it isn't [36:33] so I have the very lowest opinion [36:35] of the Wall Street Journal [36:37] and you clearly believe the tripe [36:39] that you've read in those papers [36:41] I read very widely [36:43] and I'm putting these questions to you [36:45] so that you have an opportunity to respond to them [36:47] which you are [36:49] and for which we're all grateful to hear your responses [36:51] okay we are out of time [36:53] you mentioned [36:55] re-challenging [36:57] I did so on the X platform [36:59] I challenged Vladimir Putin [37:01] to single combat [37:03] I didn't talk to him [37:05] that was a post on the X platform [37:07] that's why I asked you [37:09] and you've clarified and explained [37:11] thank you that's why I was asking [37:13] you have had reported conversations [37:15] and you said [37:17] you have it other than a video call [37:19] typical legacy media lies [37:21] okay listen I actually thought I might give Grok [37:23] the last word [37:25] because when I asked Grok [37:27] what your hardest challenge is [37:29] it said the strain of managing [37:31] multiple high stake ventures [37:33] amid financial regulatory [37:35] and public relations crises [37:37] and I wondered whether you [37:39] recognize that characterization [37:41] and whether you do think [37:43] that this is a pivotal year [37:45] in your life [37:50] well every year has been somewhat pivotal [37:52] and this one is no different [37:55] so I mean in terms of [37:57] interesting things that probably [37:59] are accomplished this year [38:01] the getting Starship [38:04] to [38:07] be fully reusable [38:09] so that we catch both the [38:11] booster and the ship [38:13] which will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket [38:15] ever in history which is [38:17] would be a profound breakthrough [38:19] necessarily to make life [38:21] multi-planetary and ultimately become [38:23] a space-faring civilization [38:25] we've got Neuralink which is [38:27] now helped five patients [38:29] restore [38:31] capability [38:33] using the telepathy implant [38:35] where they're able to control a computer simply by thinking [38:37] we'll be [38:40] doing our first [38:42] patient to restore [38:44] sight [38:46] with our blind sight [38:48] implant which at the end of this year [38:50] early next in fact that [38:52] first patient might be in UAE [38:54] since we have a relationship with UAE [38:56] and the Cleveland Clinic there [38:58] the [39:00] I think on the AI front [39:03] we are close to [39:05] what you might call AGI [39:07] or digital super [39:10] intelligence [39:13] I think we are seeing [39:15] an explosion in digital super intelligence here [39:17] and then we've got at Tesla [39:19] what we'll be launching [39:21] unsupervised autonomy basically [39:23] self-driving cars with no one in them [39:25] in Austin next month [39:27] so it's a big year for sure [39:29] many other things [39:31] in the works too [39:34] I'm a technologist [39:36] first and foremost [39:38] Elon Musk thank you very much for joining us here at [39:40] Qatar Economic Forum thank you