DOGE’s Chaos Strategy, X’s New Valuation, and Guest Co-Host Katie Drummond

Support for Pivot comes from Saks Fifth Avenue. Saks.com is personalized and honestly, that makes shopping much easier.
Let's say there's a Burberry jacket I like. Now Saks.com can show me the best Burberry jackets, any similar styles from brands I probably didn't have on my radar to begin with.
Saks.com will even let you know when the Prada loafers you've been eyeing are back in stock or when new vacation shirts from Casablanca are in. Who doesn't like easy, personalized shopping that saves you time? Head over to Saks.com.
At UC San Diego, research isn't just about asking big questions. It saves lives and fuels innovation, like predicting storms from space, teaching T-cells to attack cancer, and eliminating cybersecurity threats with AI.
As one of America's leading research universities, they are putting big ideas to work in new and novel ways. At UC San Diego, research moves the world forward.
Learn more at ucsd.edu slash research. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home.
Out. Indecision.
Overthinking. Second-guessing every choice you make.
In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done.
Out. Beige.
On beige. On beige.
In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire.
Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today.
Keep going for big balls. Tesla.sexy.lc and big balls, two things I am very sorry that I have to keep saying on TV interviews and podcasts.
Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network.
I'm Cara Swisher. Scott is off today.
Who knows where he is? But in his place, we have someone so much better, Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired. Wired has always been a powerhouse, but particularly in the era of Trump, Elon, and Doge, which I'm calling Doggy now, and its coverage has become required reading.
Katie, welcome. You've had a busy couple weeks with all these scoops on Doggy, which led to a record-breaking increase in subscriptions.
We'll get to that in a second, but welcome. Thank you for coming.
Thank you so much for having me. I am also in a mysterious location, but I'm not going to tell you where I am either.
Okay. All right.
Well, you're here at least as opposed to whatever the hell Scott's doing, taking edibles and not skiing wherever he is. So I want to talk a little bit because you guys have really come on strong here.
Now, tell me about your approach to covering this administration. Now, you became Global Editorial Director relatively recently, right? Is that correct? Yes.
Time is a funny thing these days, but it was about a year and a half ago. It was September 2023.
I got the job. I started.
And actually, my second day on the job, I emailed my boss. My boss is Anna Wintour.
That must be fun. It's actually delightful.
She's amazing. And I said, I need to hire a politics team.
And here's why. And here's what I want to do.
So it was, I'm happy to talk more about it, but it was sort of from inception, I think, looking ahead at 2024, which was obviously a critical election year for the United States and for so many other countries around the world, at the time in my head, it was much more about generative AI, mis and disinformation, you know, hacking, and those sort of tech adjacencies to politics. I wasn't thinking, well, obviously Elon Musk is going to jump in and end up like sleeping at the White House.
Like that wasn't on my radar at the time. But certainly our coverage has evolved a great deal since then.
And why did you have that instinct because of AI around the world, regulatory issues? That was the focus was that everybody's going to be focused in on what AI means and the governments included. AI was a major catalyst at the time.
And I think my feeling was, you know, Wired covers a lot. I think Wired being described as like a tech outlet is incorrect and sort of misses the forest for the trees, but you can't separate technology from politics anymore.
And so it just felt like we had the tech industry coverage, we had the consumer tech coverage, we had the science coverage, we had all this other coverage, but we were missing this really important piece over here that made everything kind of click together. Like you can't cover artificial intelligence without looking at, well, how is it being used in elections? How is it being regulated? How are politicians talking about this technology? So it just felt like we needed that political expertise.
So when did you sort of get the idea that you should really look at Doge? Because I think it's really, I mean, I'm feeling like, how did they get into this USAID? Where did you get this? You know, all this stuff that you were getting and the identities and information about all these people that were working for it? Because that's years of beat reporting, essentially. I mean, I was trying to figure it out.

I'm like, wow, they were up to speed rather quickly

and rather accurately on what's happening.

What was the strategy there?

Yeah, no, I would love to say it was years of beat reporting

because that is something that I believe in

and that is something we have implemented at Wired

is the notion of each reporter owns a beat.

We believe in iterative reporting.

So what that means essentially for someone who doesn't work in journalism is you sort of you break off pieces of a story.

You publish what you're able to confirm at any given time.

And that reporting builds on itself and builds and builds and builds.

You don't wait.

You know, I think it was over the summer when now President Trump was shot in the ear.

You remember those, the photos, the raising the fist, these sort of iconic images that I said to the staff, there is a very good chance that this person is president again. There's a very good chance that he wins because that was such a seminal moment in this election.
and and shortly after was when elon jumped in endorsed trump and really started

like running into that campaign with, you know, I think something like $280 million ultimately in contributions.

And obviously a lot of contribution via his megaphone on X that he uses.

So it was at that moment that we knew we had to really focus on Elon Musk and we had to really focus on Trump as probable president elect. And so at that point, you know, we ultimately assigned someone to cover Elon Musk in government, like Elon Musk as political operative.
That is your beat. That is what you own.
So that was in July. so you know we had a lot of of lead time to start sourcing up because it was over the summer that we

said everybody here, no matter what you cover, in some way, shape or form, what you cover will be impacted by a Trump administration. So you need to start working on that now.
And people did. I mean, they did.
And so we were prepared, I think, in large part because of that. And then I think in large part because we have journalists on the team, including Zoe Schiffer, who joined us in January, who knows a lot about Elon Musk.
I mean, she wrote a whole book about him acquiring Twitter. So I think we had the political aspect of it staffed up and running.
We had the tech industry coverage and the sort of expertise on Elon. And when you combine all of that together, really forcefully, which I think we're very good at being very forceful, we just ran at that story.
Like we ran at that story. That's interesting that you said forceful because I get what you're doing because we've done it.
We did it previously at All Things Tea with Uber or Yahoo, whatever the story was. It's nothing like this story.
I'll tell you, this is quite, I wouldn't even know what to do with this story. But talk about forcefulness because it's really important to have an editor who is, you're a critical part of this, as I know, because I've been there, like not on this biggest story, but talk about the idea of forcefulness and aggression in doing that and not in a negative way.
No, I love forcefulness and aggression. I mean, gosh, that's such an interesting question.
I just, I think that I am a forceful and relatively aggressive person. And I think that my enthusiasm for news and for scoops comes through very loudly and very clearly to the team.
And I think it has since I started the job and made it very clear what we were here to do, which was to interrogate power structures within the tech industry. Like that is what I'm interested in doing.
And so I have been very clear about that from day one. And another thing is people do try to stop you.
They say, why are you being so aggressive? And I think people don't understand that. When we were very aggressive on Uber and what was happening there with Travis Kalanick, a venture capitalist approached me at a restaurant called Marad.
And they said, when are you going to stop being so hard on him? And I said, when he stays down. I just know what to say.
And they were like, well, that's, you know, rude. I'm like, what? Like, I'm sorry.
He's a terrible CEO. He's doing terrible things and he's not staying down so when he's when he stays down um that's probably when we'll stop or even beyond it was an interesting it's hard for people to understand do you feel pressure yourself because this is big stakes i mean that was just that was just uber like who cares kind of thing i don't mean to say who cares but you know what i mean this is this is the bigs this is really the bigs Do you personally feel pressure when you, or do you feel that you have to pull back

anymore? I don't mean to say who cares, but you know what I mean. This is the bigs.
This is really the bigs. Do you personally feel pressure when you, or do you feel that you have to pull back anyway? I've noticed a pullback among certain people, for sure.

No, no, no. And it's not even some grandiose notion that I have.
I mean, I remember when we published that, one of our first stories naming several of these young engineers, and it was an explosive story. We got a lot of criticism.
And it's not that I was surprised by any of it, but I just hadn't, like, the idea of softening that story had not even entered my mind. And I don't say that to brag.
I say it because we're just like, this is the job. I get paid to do this.
This is my job. I take my job very seriously.
I love what I do. But I have not thought for a second that we should soften anything that we're doing.
I think what we owe our audience is very clear, very transparent, like very direct coverage and explanations of exactly what is happening as we are able to learn it and confirm it. Like that's all we're doing.
That's it. Yeah, exactly.
One of the things that was the texts were so disingenuous, you know, you're saying who they are. You were not saying little pricks or anything else.
You know, you were, I was saying that. But you were very clearly just saying, this is who's working on this stuff.
This is the federal government. It deserves transparency.
And those attacks were disingenuous. I mean, he attacked, Ilana attacked Scott and I for being mean to them or something like that.
Right, right, right. It's part of a narrative they have, trying to get on how these poor kids, how dare you attack these poor kids.
Right. I mean, the notion that there is something illegal about naming individuals working within federal agencies at the behest of Elon Musk is nonsense.
Like, I just I don't even I don't even understand what that means. Yeah, exactly.
And those stories were anything. So let's go into some of these stories, because I think it's really people are sort of it's a breathtaking level of scoops, I have to say.
It's really and I think a lot of people are doing a great job now. I do.
And what's interesting is they've they've stepped up since you stepped up. It actually creates an energy around the coverage itself, which I think is I've noticed just today.
I saw about three stories elsewhere. And I was like, this would only be because Wired's been so aggressive.

Oh, I appreciate that.

But you can feel it.

You can feel it.

But people were slow to the idea of what's happening here.

So it's been a month since Trump took office.

There's a lot happening in the land of doge, doggy, as I say.

So let's dig in.

One shocking thing we learned this week, Elon Musk's apparently not in charge of doggy.

The White House said in a court fine that Elon Musk is not the U.S. Doggy Service service administrator.
I'm sorry to say it that way, but I'm going to keep doing it. He's an employee in the White House office akin to a senior advisor.
Talk a little bit about this. And I'm going to go into some of your stories, too.
But talk about what you thought. Is this the loopiest of loopholes? The White House can stay out of legal trouble.
Several state's attorney generals argued in a suit last week that Elon is wielding power that can only be held by elected officials and people confirmed by the Senate. But a federal judge ruled there isn't enough evidence for irreparable harm to justify a temporary restraining order.
This is a legal nicety. The judge also expressed questions about what the White House was doing.
Yes. Questions isn't quite taking it far enough, I don't think, at this point, but I'm not a judge.
So my understanding of this, I mean, first of all, it is chaos across the board. It's like, wait, sorry.
The President of the United States has been saying for months that Elon Musk is in charge of Doge, that he runs Doge. He's in charge of Doge, Elon's doing this thing, Elon's making these decisions.
All of a sudden, in a court filing, we now have the White House saying, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. He's just like helping out.
He's just helping the president. That is just, first of all, total chaos.
Second of all, my understanding of that sworn statement, just to be clear, it is a sworn statement, is that essentially that allows Elon to continue doing what Elon is doing within these federal agencies and within Doge without facing legal ramifications for overstepping in a role that, to what you just said, ought to be an elected position. Like, he ought to have had to be elected or confirmed in some way, shape, or form.
Instead, he just walked right in the front door. And I think what they are trying to do is avoid any legal scenario where he needs to stop down what he is working on.
So Wired published a story this week about a law that could possibly stop some of Doggy's actions. Explain that.
Explain what you're doing. Because you are building a case, right, in your own way, in a journalistic way.
Yeah, I think trying to, you know, there have been so many lawsuits at this point filed about what Doge is doing. What several of them have in common is that they rely on this Watergate-era law, the Privacy Act, that essentially prevents government employees from accessing Americans' data in a variety of different ways.
So it essentially is designed to safeguard very sensitive information about the American people from agents within the U.S.

government. And so essentially we have lawsuits saying, you know, everything that's happening here, sort of the access that Doge appears to have within these agencies is a violation of

this Privacy Act that was instituted, you know, several decades ago. You know, whether that

actually succeeds in any or all of these lawsuits is an open question. And I think one thing that's interesting to me, and I think troubling to me is that, you know, that argument could succeed in one instance, let's say, a lawsuit with regards to access in the Treasury Department, and it could fail in another instance.
So let's say access to IRS data, right? So you have this sort of like band-aid slapdash approach to trying to just like stop Doge from accessing as much data as possible. But how do you stop them from accessing data wholesale on sort of like a holistic level? I don't think we have an answer to that.
Do you have a legal reporter? How do you, how do you, because I think the lawsuits will reveal a lot, but it's the slowest way of dealing with a very difficult situation. It's the slowest way.
And certainly it opens up questions about whether or not the administration decides to abide by the rulings of the courts, right? I mean, I think that's an existential question for the country. You know, we don't have a legal reporter.
We just have really, really smart security and politics reporters and, you know, a team of managers on top of them who are the smartest journalists I've ever worked with. And we make a lot of phone calls.
So we talk to a lot of experts who know this stuff inside and out and can essentially help us translate all of that information for the audience to make it as easy as possible for people to understand, you know, what is happening and what potential safeguards exist to prevent it from happening. So you use the word chaos a lot.
It's important. This is one of Elon's signature moves, chaos, to create chaos or create trouble and then make accusations.
He's got six or seven moves, including attacking you for revealing the names, for example. But chaos is the point here, I think, in many ways, so that everyone has to run around and do these Band-Aid approaches.
Yeah, it's interesting, too, because chaos is also a signature move of President Trump.

And so we're sort of seeing chaos in a big picture way across the entire federal government, the entire federal apparatus. Doge being one pocket of chaos that like sits within the larger chaos umbrella.
So it's just like chaos everywhere you look. And I actually think my sort of theory is that at least some of the chaos being created by the Trump administration in a big picture way is distracting people from like the nitty gritty doge chaos that's happening inside of all of these agencies in this sort of simultaneous and concurrent way.
So I actually think like a lot of the, you know, it's like the Gulf of America, all of the craziness about- Self-distraction, yeah. Yeah, the DEI stuff, as awful as it is, I think these are, you know, Canada is the 51st state.
Like these are distractions while 25-year-old engineers who interned at SpaceX are trying to obtain administrative access to very sensitive systems that contain data about millions of Americans. Can you give people a sense of why they want that? I have a theory, but what is their need for getting that to get to the data? That's a really good question.
If I had an answer to that question, I would be publishing a story. I mean, if you say that they want to train AI on Americans' data, I will smile and laugh and freak out.
Although I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I mean, I just, I think that Elon Musk wants complete and total control of the entire federal infrastructure and apparatus.
I think that's what the driving force is here. I don't think he's in it for his contracts.
I don't think he's in it to make Tesla a more successful company. I think he's in it to run the thing the way he runs every other company in his portfolio.
Whether or not he wants that data to train an AI, I think is an open question. But I'm curious to hear what you think.
It does vaunt Grok ahead, which is not ahead. Grok is not ahead.
But it vaunts, he puts him in a pole position. Because, you know, as you know, many AI researchers think we're running out of data, right? That's been the big discussion recently.
Well, there you go. And you're right, he does.
But for what purpose does he want to run it? That's the part that's going to be very difficult to report when you're thinking about it in that big term. And you have a better sense of his psychology than I do.
But there certainly seems to be something very, very deeply buried inside of him that just wants to run everything. I mean, it just feels like pure ego.
Or he wants to go to Mars and he needs the government to do so. There's all kinds of theories on that.
So let's talk about the relationship you mentioned between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They sat down for a joint interview with Sean Hannity, the House reporter there at the White House.
And I mean that in a negative way. Hannity said he felt like he was interviewing two brothers.
Hannity, it was the biggest wet kiss. He licked them up and down the entire time.
Elon shared how much money he's trying to cut from the deficit. Let's listen.
Well, the overall goal is to try to get a trillion dollars out of the deficit. And if the deficit is not brought under control, America will go bankrupt.
This is a very important thing for people to understand. A country is no different from an individual in that if an individual overspends, an individual can go bankrupt.
And so can a country. That's the idiot's guide to how countries are run.
But that's not correct.

That's not correct.

But, well, Doge says it saved $55 billion in federal spending.

So far, the actual data shows it's much less.

One major error found on the Doge website,

it mislabeled the contract as $8 billion when it was actually $8 million.

You all have been doing a lot of reporting around this,

this idea of what the cuts that are being made.

And NPR just did one showing the same thing, that this is not $55 million. And of course, now they're also talking about sending people dividend checks, which is trying to make people happy with them and allowing them to keep doing what they're doing.
It's come rather early. The payoff has come rather early.
But talk a little bit about this and what these young people are trying to do. And are there more of them moving into the space now that it's gotten momentum? Yeah.
From everything we can tell, you know, Doge is expanding. I mean, the budget for Doge, I think last week, expanded to the tune of several million dollars, which strongly suggests that they are

onboarding more personnel, that they're bringing more people in, not exactly a model of efficiency themselves if they continue at this rate. But, you know, essentially what we have been able to establish, like there's a pattern to what they are doing, right? So they gain access to an agency, they gain access to, in particular, I think systems that contain, you know, personnel files, personnel data about, you know, who is a probationary employee, for example, right? So that's someone, as the Trump administration recently changed the rules around this, someone who is, I think, like, in a, they made the probationary period one year instead of two years, I think, which basically allowed them to fire more people.
So they're going into these agencies, obtaining data about personnel and salaries. And then they are just, you know, pushing through, like, sweeping layoffs of hundreds or thousands of federal workers across, you know, every agency that you can possibly imagine and sort of a new one every day, right? I think that has become like the repeat sort of Mad Libs version of these stories is Doge is now inside X agency doing Y layoffs.
Like that's, that is the story. The reality though, is first of all, to indiscriminately fire thousands of civil servants without really having an in-depth understanding of what they do, what it even means to be in a probationary period, because that also applies to someone who was recently promoted.
So you have people who have been 10, 20, 30-year government workers who were just lumped into this probationary worker category and fired, first of all. So there's that whole hot mess express over there.
But when the rubber hits the road, like when you look at the math, like when you do the numbers, firing a bunch of civil servants isn't going to get you a trillion dollars. Like that's not where the money is.
And so you have these sort of these big promises, these sweeping claims about savings from like, we cut this contract, we don't subscribe to Politico Pro anymore, look at us go, look at all the people that we're firing. That doesn't actually add up to that much money.
And so I think the question is like, where are you planning on finding the other like, $92 billion that you need to find to get to a trillion dollars when you're looking at who is doing this it's indiscriminate because they're also inexperienced um the the vetting of these people who are doing this is also you're doing the vetting wired is doing the vetting and a lot of them have sort of what i'm not surprised by but typical ob obnoxious tech bro behaviors, you know, in terms of being on certain sites, doing certain things. Yeah, Wired is doing the vetting to the credit of so many other journalists, too.
I mean, other news organizations, you know, Wall Street Journal, very notably, Bloomberg, have been breaking some really important stories about some of these individuals as well. I think one thing that's important to note is sort of how this recruiting appears to have happened in the first place.
So we published a story, I think 10 days ago, about, you know, essentially like former interns at companies like SpaceX or Palantir going to online forums for alumni of those internship programs or of those companies and basically doing like a spray and pray like, hey, guys, does anyone want to save the federal government? Like DM me and we'll get you like onboarded with Doge. So that appears to have been, you know, the very sort of elite handpicked recruiting process was actually just, you know, posting in message boards.
From there, it's relatively unclear what kind of vetting actually happened or whether there was an interview process, whether there were background checks, security clearances. I mean, we published a story about one of these guys who goes by big balls.
We've all heard about big balls. Everyone has talked a lot about big balls, but, you know, we talked to several, I think three or four different experts who said it is very unlikely that this guy would ever pass a security clearance to walk into a federal agency.
Like it would not happen. This guy has been involved in not criminal enterprises, but at the very least like criminally adjacent enterprises.
He has, you know, he's running, you know, web domains out of Russia. Like he is doing all sorts of really bizarre, sketchy stuff that would raise serious red flags with someone doing just a background check before allowing a new federal...
Everyone loves that. Yeah.
I mean, it's just, it's this sort of like reckless disregard for any standards in terms of who you're bringing in. And explain why he wants those young people to do it.
I know why, because the older people wouldn't. Older people wouldn't.
I think, look, there is this, as you know very well, the cult of Elon, right? And I think for a lot of young men in the technology space, what he is doing and everything that he does and the way he lives his life, the way he communicates online, he's an icon. He's an idol.
I mean, they look up to him and they are very malleable and pliable and they will go into these agencies and do as told because they are doing it for Elon. They are doing it for this larger cause, this notion of saving the United States.
I would imagine for a 19-year-old who, you know, runs a company called Tesla.Sexy LLC, probably thinks this is a pretty exciting adventure, to be honest. It is.
It is. It is.
And yeah, older people just wouldn't do. They do have older people, as you've noted, and others have reported, very sophisticated lawyers and everything else.
And someone who's not hiding his disgust for Elon is Steve Bannon, which is interesting. Bannon called Elon, I think, this week, a parasitic illegal immigrant, though he did compliment Doge.
And he said Elon wants to play act as God. He does seem to be a fan, as I said, of Doge's work.
He told CNN, let's listen. Elon's doing some great work.
You know, I'm a huge supporter of the deconstruction administrative state and what Elon's doing in in Doge. I'm a big supporter of that.
I hope and my prayer is, is that these cuts are real. So Bannon later called out Elon, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos as oligarchs who don't support the MAGA movement.
What is going on here? I think he would turn and be pals with Elon in five seconds. No question with this guy.
I mean, my best guess here is that Steve Bannon is outside of the inner circle and wishes he was inside of the inner circle. Right.
And has sort of been supplanted by Elon Musk. I mean, I think it's interesting to compare that Time magazine cover with Bannon from the first Trump administration to now Elon, you know, in that very iconic time cover from a couple weeks ago.
He's sitting in front of the Resolute desk. Yeah, I think that Steve Bannon is sort of on the outside looking in, probably wishing that he was part of the club.
That's my best guess. Right, right, right.
And that's what those compliments for. When you think about those who are pushing back, are there really true people pushing back? And what can be done? Obviously, Scott makes fun of the people, the Democrats standing in front of agencies and yelling.
But, you know, there is something to protest, obviously. Is there real pushback within the government and within technology circles? They just seem to be quitting.
A lot of the techies who are in there are leaving, are going. Yeah, yeah.
I wish I could say that we were seeing signs of some really coherent strategic effort on the part of the Democrats, on the part of, you know, leaders within these agencies to push back on what was happening or prevent it from happening. That's not what I'm seeing.
I don't think that's what our reporting indicates. I don't think that we're seeing that play out.
I think what we're seeing, to your point, are politicians standing up outside of offices in D.C. and making a fuss and making noise, which, fine.

I mean, even just the visibility of that, I think having those clips on social media, there's value there.

Obviously, we're seeing, you know, people take to the streets and protest in, I think, relatively small numbers at this point, if I'm being totally honest. And I also don't think the Trump administration gives two shits whether people are taking to the streets and protesting in relatively small numbers.
And then we are seeing, you know, career civil servants, people in very senior positions within these agencies walk. We're seeing them walk publicly, right? They're

not being shy about why they're leaving. And I completely understand that for someone who has been in a position like that, and who can no longer, I think, with integrity, hold the office that they hold, that the only choice they feel they have is to leave.
On the flip side, though, what that means is it just became that much easier for Elon Musk and President Trump and all of these, you know, leaders within these federal agencies to put someone else in these big jobs who will be malleable, who will be pliant and who will execute according to Musk and Trump's demands. So that's essentially what that means.
They just they just opened up the. And that's a good thing.
Yeah, among the biggest people is the cyber people. They're terribly worried.
That's the ones who are sort of sounding the alarms in terms of the porousness of what's happening here. Yeah.
All right, we're going to a quick break. We come back more about Doe Central and Wired's amazing reporting.
It's a question everyone has asked at some point in their lives. Now what? And on the Prop G show, we're finally going to try to answer it.
We're running a special series right now where I'll answer listener submitted questions about the best way to further their careers and how to position themselves for success as they consider the next step in their professional journey. It's time to look to the future and stop worrying about the past.
So tune in Wednesdays to the Prop G pod for these special Q&A episodes sponsored by Canva. You can find us wherever you get your podcasts.
What if the keys to solve the world's hardest problems were already within our grasp? Not just to tweak the systems we have, but to rethink them completely. At X, Google's Moonshot Factory, we take on the impossible.
Clean energy, global food security, connectivity for everyone, radical ideas that could change the world. And now, in the Moonshot Podcast, I'm bringing you unprecedented access to the people making it happen.
I had every reason to believe this is fundamentally impossible. And I was the expert.
People here literally manifest things out of nothing. Some of these ideas will make it, some will fail, but every Moonshot moves us forward because the future isn't something we just predict.
It's something we build together. What an incredible time to exercise what only humans can do, dreaming together and imagining the world we want to step into.
I'm Astro Teller. This is the Moonshot Podcast.
Out now, wherever you listen. Last week was our first playoff game, and my p psoriasis was so itchy under all my gear.
Sometimes just thinking about scratching could take me out of the moment. And then my doctor told me I could get clearer skin with a pill called Otesla.
Otesla apremolast is a prescription medicine used to treat adult patients with plaque psoriasis for whom phototherapy or systemic therapy is appropriate. Otesla can help you get clearer skin after just four months.

Okay, ready for the next game.

Talking to my doctor about a pill was a total game changer.

Don't use Otesla if you're allergic to it.

Get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing or swallowing,

swelling of the face, lips, tongue, throat, or arms.

Severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting, depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss can happen. Tell your doctor if any of these occur and if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts.
Live in the moment. Ask your doctor about Otesla.
Call 1-844-4OTESLA or visit Otesla.com for prescribing info, info about cost, and more. Katie, we're back.
There's obviously been a lot of questions. You mentioned about conflicts of interest since Elon came to Washington.
I agree. I don't think his big thing is to make money, although he doesn't mind doing it.
And he's supported, like he's using threats to push X. He's using threats to this and that.
He's doing the typical shakedown kind of thing that can happen. Wired has done some new reporting on SpaceX engineers in the FAA.
They're also putting his people within the FAA. And also, apparently, President Trump's trying to get him to figure out why he doesn't have his jet.
Like, he's putting him on that, too. Talk about that.
I'll note SpaceX launches are regulated by the FAA, and the agency has alleged that SpaceX violated safety rules in the past many times. Talk a little bit about the story today.

Yeah. So, oh, I mean, and as someone who travels by airplane frequently and takes a lot of Xanax to do it, I have to say this line of reporting has been particularly stressful for me as a human being.
So we've identified several SpaceX engineers who were onboarded into the FAA this week, even as the Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, I think on Monday said, we've got some engineers from SpaceX, they're taking a tour of some facilities, sort of like nothing to see here. Meanwhile, they were actually being onboarded as employees of the FAA.
And so these are these are engineers. I think it's important to be very clear that these these are people with legitimate qualifications, right? I'm not talking about 19 year olds who have decided to put up a rocket.
Yeah, right. These are people who, you know, work at SpaceX, like they make rockets go into the sky and then come down.
But there are obviously, you know, several concerns or issues with regards to the FAA right now. One is that, you know, Doge just fired, I think, several hundred FAA workers in a moment where it's very clear that the FAA has been understaffed and spread way too thin for far too long, right? There have been alarm

bells sounded about that for a very long time. So the notion that we would be reducing staff within that agency is stressful to begin with.
There's also just the reality, as you just pointed out, that the FAA oversees SpaceX and has fined SpaceX several times for safety violations. So the idea that you would have engineers from a company that is regulated by the agency that they now work for going in to try to, quote, fix that agency is one enormous and very stressful conflict of interest.
I just find the idea of, you know, someone with experience relevant to SpaceX going in to fix the agency that also oversees and governs, you know, commercial aviation, that's genuinely a very scary prospect. Yeah, and it's happening all over the government.
Obviously, you guys have been reporting on that. And again, who's running SpaceX and Twitter and all these other, I've seen Steve Davis, who's been a very active Musk minion.
What is the point here of putting them there just for eyes? I assume eyes and ears. Yeah, I think eyes and ears and marching orders, right? I mean, they're there to carry out Elon's asks, even though he is ostensibly, apparently not in charge of Doge.
I think we all know that that's, you know, that's a lie. It's an interesting characterization that doesn't seem reflected in what's actually going on.
I mean, look, I think they're the adults in the room. I think they're there to act as the authority within a handful of different agencies and get these young operatives where they need to be.
What's the impact on the companies? Because by the way, Tesla's not doing great, by the way. They're not, you know, but what is happening at the companies when they pull these people out? I mean, as of now, I think it's fair to say Tesla's not doing great, but we also have situations like X being shopped around at a valuation that matches what Elon paid for it a few years ago.
So I think it's hard to say what's happening at the companies, especially because so many of these people appear to be pulling double duty, right? I think we had an example a week ago. I believe it was a Doge operative within the technology transformation services who had kept his job at an external company while fulfilling this role for Muscat Federal Agencies.
So it would not be surprising if a lot of these people pull the Elon playbook and work several jobs at the same time. Could he put, he could put them in every agency, his own employees, correct, that are beholden to him and nobody else? He could, and that's what has been going on.
I mean, we've also seen Doge operatives. I call them operatives because that feels like the most accurate way to describe them.
Like, they have multiple email addresses. So, you have people working within two, three, four agencies at any given time, multiple email addresses, apparently sort of acting out the asks of Musk and sort of Doge leadership across the federal government at once, which is a terrifying proposition, honestly.
And who is coordinating all that? Elon is not doing this alone. Who do you think is the most critical person helping him coordinate this? I think in particular at the Office of Personnel Management, which is, I think, shorthand for that would be like, it's like HR for the federal government.
There's a woman named Amanda Scales who has worked for Muskk before uh most recently at xai and she's there as chief of staff so she's really sort of like running point you know what a chief of staff does i mean they sort of like keep all the trains moving it's like the managing editor is the way i think of it of of the federal government so i think that she is like a very critical linchpin in this then you also have the gsa is the General Services Administration, and sort of the leaders that he has installed across those two agencies because they oversee so many different branches of the federal government. I mean, I think that those are sort of the critical adults in the room who are working across all of these different agencies from where they are stationed.
But I think Amanda Scales is an important person to be paying attention to, just in the sense that she is really the operational leader working within that agency. And he always has those.
He has those all the time that are loyal to him. What people have to understand, they're loyal to Elon Musk, not Donald Trump.
These are not Trump. These were not Trump supporters, and neither was Elon for a long time So I want to ask you about President Trump because what is his role in here? And last week he's channeled Napoleon posting, he who saves his country does not violate the law.
He was controlling people with that. He also called himself king on Wednesday as he tried to kill congestion pricing in New York.
He's busy. That interview was really something.
It doesn't seem like he knows what Elon is doing. That's my impression.
Everything that we have heard from inside the administration and around the administration is that even people very close to President Trump don't know what Doge is doing. They don't know how often to be communicating with Doge.
They don't know what that process is supposed to look like. It really feels like Doge is always two or three steps ahead.

And the actual White House, the actual administration is behind.

They are catching up with what Doge is doing.

Honestly, it seems like as the press is, as journalists are publishing stories, it sort of feels like the administration is finding out what Elon has been up to,

despite, you know, any assurances or anything that the president is saying publicly, because he has been very publicly supportive of Musk and Doge. It really doesn't seem like he has any idea what's going on.
And frankly, it doesn't really seem like he cares. And why do you think he's allowing this to happen? Wow, that's a great question.
I mean, I think that he likes the story that he's able to tell.

He's telling, you know, U.S. citizens, people who voted for him, that he's cutting cost.
He's telling them that he is very close to tech and to sort of tech leadership and to the visionary Elon Musk. I think he likes the story.
I think he loves the chaos. I think he loves the fact that

Doge is in the headlines 24-7. I think it keeps his administration top of mind for people because

it's inescapable. Yeah, it's a great narrative.
I think he likes the story. I don't think he actually cares what's happening in the details.
I don't think he's getting into the fine print on this. Nothing at all.
All right, Katie, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about X's new valuation.
The PC gave us computing power at home, the internet connected us, and mobile let us do it pretty much anywhere. Now Generative AI lets us communicate with technology in our own language, using our own senses.
But figuring it all out when you're living through it is a totally different story. Welcome to Leading the Shift, a new podcast for Microsoft Azure.

I'm your host, Susan Etlinger.

In each episode, leaders will share what they're learning to help you navigate all this change with confidence.

Please join us.

Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Today Explained here with Eric Levitt, senior correspondent at Vox.com,

to talk about the 2024 election.

That can't be right, Eric. I thought we were done with that.
I feel like I'm Pacino in three. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
Why are we talking about the 2024 election again? The reason why we're still looking back is that it takes a while after an election to get all of the most high quality data on what exactly happened. So the full picture is starting to just come into view now.
And you wrote a piece about the full picture for Vox recently, and it did bonkers business on the internet. What did it say? What struck a chord? Yeah, so this was my interview with David Shore of Blue Rose Research.
he's one of the biggest sort of democratic data gurus in the party. And basically, the big picture headline takeaways are on today explained, you'll have to go listen to them there.
Find the show wherever you listen to shows, bro. Katie, we're back.
Let's get to a couple more headlines. Elon Musk acts as in talks to raise money from investors at a valuation of $44 billion.
If that number sounds familiar, it's because it's the same price Musk bought the platform back in 2022. In December, Fidelity Investments marked down its stake in the company by 70%.
This follows a trend of Musk's company valuation soaring since he's taken a significant role in the Trump administration, even if the companies are suffering, such as Tesla. Numbers are down and the price was up.
X is not in the same place it was for Elon. It's smaller.
Today, the Wall Street Journal published a very good story about X people pressuring advertisers to get back on or else maybe they'll face an investigation or they'd be added to a lawsuit that they're doing. They're using a lot of legal means to try to force advertisers onto what is clearly a less good platform.
Talk about this. Although, again, it's not for him to make money is not maybe his guiding role.
He certainly is doing it. And here's a perfect example of it.
Here's a perfect example. I mean, this is a platform that to say that it has seen better days would be a massive understatement.
I mean, it is, for all intents and purposes, a right-wing echo chamber. It's a mess.
It's a terrible user experience. None of the ideas that they have advanced around X sound any good at all.
You know, you could pay people on X. They're going to introduce audio and video.
They're going to integrate it with Grok AI. Sounds like a complete train wreck.
I mean, none of these are particularly promising ideas for the platform or the business.

however Elon Musk is very close to the president I mean he has that adjacency that for investors I would imagine is is very appealing and for investors and advertisers you know the the

sort of the implicit or direct threats that are

Here we go. investors, I would imagine, is very appealing.
And for investors and advertisers, you know, the sort of the implicit or direct threats that are, you know, reportedly being made. So it's not just that it's exciting or enticing to think that they might be able to sort of get closer to the administration and curry favor with Musk and Trump.
It's that in some instances, at least with advertisers, it seems like they're not really being given much of a choice.

Right.

They are going to either pay or not, but you're going to be in trouble in some way.

Let me read you someone.

I asked them about this today.

I think this dynamic's playing out that every advertiser who knows what they're doing, no media buyer, indeed no marketer, wants their CEO gets a call from Elon Musk, berating them

for not advertising on X.

It sounds judgment to avoid by throwing some money to the company. Everything about this I loathe.
It creates a bad precedent. It puts money in Elon's pocket.
It undermines the advertising business. I think it's just prudent business.
I have heard stories that the team is making veiled threats, perhaps not so failed threats, and I think it will ultimately bite them someday. But this is a classic story of corruption that, you know, it's just a kind of thing like that.
You cannot build businesses on threats. I mean, you can't, but you can actually.
I mean, I think what is disturbing to imagine is what's playing out with X right now in terms of the conflict of interest, the corruption, advertisers bending a knee, investors bending a knee, everybody sort of getting in line to go along with what's happening here. To be clear, what's happening here is not okay by any measure.
If you extrapolate that and sort of think about it across many, many companies across the entire country, like across the United States of America, like that, this is what is happening to our country. X is a microcosm of that, right? But you have a lot of really wealthy, really powerful people, institutions, corporations, bending a knee and saying like, oh, oligarchy? Like, okay, let's, like, let's, sure, I guess we don, we don't have a choice.
So hands up, we're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna go along with it. They are, they are saying, I've heard them say it to me, that we don't have a choice.
We can't do it right now. We can't do anything about it.
Is there anyone else trying to take it back? Obviously, all the tech leaders showed up at inauguration in that shameless display of fealty. I mean, I think that all of the pictures I saw of Tim Cook from inauguration, like he looked physically ill and like somewhat mortified.
But he was there. And let history show, let the photos remind everyone in four years when, knock on wood, we have another election and the tables turn, knock on wood, he was there.
They were all there. Sam Altman was

there. Sam Altman, obviously an incredibly opportunistic tech executive, was there and then subsequently, you know, polished the president's shoes while telling him how amazing his leadership was going to be for AI in this country and the world.
You know, Mark Zuckerberg obviously is the most, I think, brazen and craven example of this. And I'm speechless at that one because I think it is so, it's nauseating.
It's nauseating. And again, I think really importantly with all of these tech executives, what's very important for the media and for press and for everybody to remember as the years go by and there's more and more chaos and we're doing more and more, when the dust settles, don't forget that they were all there.
Don't forget what Mark Zuckerberg did to his company to appease the president of the United States. The influence that Meta's platforms have on millions, if not billions of people.
Don't forget what he did to appease the administration. I think that that's really important because so much is happening every day.
It's been a month. It's been a month.
Is there any resistance in tech at all, besides Reid Hoffman and maybe Mark Cuban? None that I have been able to discern. You know, I've talked to a lot of tech leaders and tech CEOs, even just off the record or talking to their comms people.
And the message to me has been very clear. When we go on the record, don't ask us about politics.
They don't want to talk about it. They're not talking about it.
And I think it feels so markedly different to 2016 when a lot of them were talking about it. I think Airbnb, I remember, was a really notable example then of a company that came out swinging with regards to the Trump administration, with regards to the president's comments on immigrants, people from garbage countries, whatever, shithole countries.
um you know it's radio silence, which I think is really telling, really disturbing, and will unleash any number of crises over the next four years. I really believe that.
So last question, the Democrats, I don't think, were as close to tech as people thought it was. I thought Obama was, you know, in that regard with Eric Schmidt and others.
Do you think it's a wholesale change? I think it's an opportunistic change. And the joke I make is that if Kamala Harris won, Mark Zuckerberg would be asking us to calling him they them.
Yes. You know, I don't think it's anything other than that because I don't think they're committed in any way.
And I think Steve Bannon's right. They're not MAGA friends.
They just are opportunistic. In that regard, is there an opportunity for Democrats in that way, besides giving these toddlers what they want? You mean to get closer to the tech industry? Back to closest.
Or do you think it's an overall shift that's permanent? I don't think it's an overall shift. I think you're right that this is like company before country, right? This is opportunistic.
What's best for Meta in this specific moment in the context of the numbers, right? It's about the bottom line. It's not even about the staff and whether or not they're having a good time.
It is absolutely opportunistic, but I think to be able, for the Democrats to be able to create an opportunity here would require them to first get their shit together and figure out what their strategy actually is over the next four years. And so it's a really hard question to answer when beyond some sternly worded statements and speeches and a couple of people hanging out in D.C.
outside of these federal agencies being noisy, I don't really see a coherent strategy taking shape at all. I would be very interested to see what they think they could do to collaborate more closely with the tech industry to sort of create a productive working relationship with some of these leaders so that hopefully in three and a half years, we're in a very different position ahead of the next U.S.
election. But it's very hard to see that happening right now because I don't see much happening at all.
Yeah, I would agree with you. I would agree.
Okay, Katie, it's time for this week's Threads poll result. Last week, we asked you all what you wish Democrats were doing in response to Trump administration.
That's why I was asking about that. Here are a few responses.

Carrie said, replace Schumer's entire comm staff with Pete Buttigieg.

From Marina, primary, retire all those old white men and support young, ferocious, fearless candidates.

And Nick said, talk like human beings, stop fundraising texts, demonstrate understanding of urgency.

We know the house is on fire.

We want to see firefighters, nurses, cops. Good answers, kind of what you were saying.
I mean, I think this is right. It's the elderliness of it, the tone definite, the lack of social media.
I think the Republicans are excellent on social media and comparatively, and the Democrats certainly aren't as much. Some are, certainly are.
Do you see anybody being very promising? I mean, Pritzker suddenly has sort of developed a backbone and is using social media a lot. Obviously, AOC uses it.
Is there anybody, and how important is that going forward? I've always been a big Pete Buttigieg fan. I think he knows how to create a viral moment.
He's very well-spoken. He's very forceful.
I think that he continues to be a really promising voice in that party. Obviously, I think that AOC is tremendous.
I mean, I think she is articulate. She is forceful, she is accessible.
I think what she does on vertical video, on social platforms, in terms of communicating with her audience, is phenomenal. I wish that we saw more politicians do that kind of, I want to call it grassroots outreach.
It's grassroots digital outreach, right? It's meeting your constituents where they are on the platforms where they spend time, talking to them in a way that feels authentic, helping them navigate what is happening right now, and sort of really genuinely acting as a voice for the people and someone for the people to look to as a leader. I think the Democrats need more to the point of one of the commenters, really sort of, you know, high energy, high velocity, forceful political leaders instead of, candidly, you know, the geriatrics who are just kind of sitting on their hands right now.
Waving, like Scott says, waving their canes at people. I would agree.
I actually see Chris Murphy doing some interesting things. There's a bunch of them.
There's a bunch of them, but it has to be coordinated in a way that, you know, and you still have the power of the Rogans, although he's slipping a little bit. You're starting to see slippage with him.
I think the audience is up for grabs, that's for sure, if they want to have the right questions. All right.
Now for this week's questions for our audience. Do you think China will agree to the sale of TikTok under the Trump administration? Katie, I want your response very quickly on this one.
No. And so what happens? What happens? I mean, first of all, I think everything happening right now is very dubious in its legality.
And I'm not quite sure how TikTok is still in the app stores that the Supreme Court said it shouldn't be in. I think that Trump brokers some kind of deal to keep TikTok in the United States.
I think it's very clear that he has no intention of letting this thing shut down. So I think he brokers some sort of deal.
What's in it for Beijing, though, is the big question mark I have, because they have no interest in allowing that platform to operate in this country without their oversight and without their control of that algorithm.

So how he actually solves for that, I do not know.

And we at Wired, I will say, we do not know.

And do you see any person besides Larry Ellison rising to the front?

I have said Musk, obviously, because he's acceptable to China.

I think Elon Musk.

I think Larry Ellison. I do not think, as much as I really like Frank McCourt, and I think that he is, you know, a very articulate and intelligent person.
I don't see that sort of taking shape in any meaningful way. Yeah, I think it's probably going to be the Elon thing once again.
This is going to fix everything. And it's good for Twitter.
It would be good for Twitter because that's an actually good product as opposed to Twitter. Visit us on threads at Pivot Podcast Official to answer.
So

we'll hear the answers that we get from listeners. If you've got a question of your own or you'd like answered, send it our way.
Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. All right, Katie, one more quick break.
We'll be back for your prediction. okay katie let's hear a prediction you are scott galloway today okay i'm gonna offer a completely insane please improbable prediction but i feel like i have talked so much about so many things that are very stressful um and real bummers for everybody and i'm sorry that.
So here's my prediction. One thing that we know about Elon Musk is that he latches on to an idea or an ideology and he sticks with it and he goes really, really hard at it.
And then he changes his mind. It has happened before.
My prediction, and you'll have me back on in six months or a year and make fun of me for how wrong I was, something will happen, whether it has to do with his companies, whether it has to do with a divide in MAGA world within sort of the Trump orbit, something will happen.

And he will pivot back to a more progressive, more left-leaning, Dem-centric ideology.

And he will do away with this sort of like hardline, extremist, far-right approach. This is, I am giving you a very optimistic, a very optimistic prediction.
And it's just your wish, your wish that he, that he will do this? I think there is a 1% chance that it will happen. And so I'm using it as my prediction.
He used to support, I just was looking at texts he sent me about the climate change thing he was exactly he was so upset in the text like that trump was doing same thing oddly enough with gay and lesbian stuff i just i i think it's important for people to remember that he he was not always this way it was not always like this well he was a little bit this way he was a little but he was not out there avidly cheering on Donald Trump in 2016. So I am saying there is a 1% chance that he moves in the other direction.
Well, we'll see. I don't know what could happen.
Getting off the evening activities, I don't know what could happen. I don't know.
You never know. His daughter is nice to him, who can't stand him.
Exactly. You never know.
You never know. If Elon Musk, if Elon Musk and Donald Trump in the last six months have shown us anything that you never know.
I did not know. He is consistent.
Donald Trump is consistent. He has not changed one bit, except he's got a rich friend that he uses as a cudgel on everybody else.
But we'll see. That's a really good one, Katie.
I like it. Thank you.
I like it. Excellent.

I like it.

We'll see.

I will have you back in six months if that happens.

Wonderful.

All right.

I just want to say, absolutely stellar coverage.

Thank you.

You guys are not just a scoop machine, but the context, and you're sticking to it.

Let me ask you a personal question. Are you worried in any way for yourself with all these threats?

People ask me that a lot, because when he recently threatened Scott and I, and I was like, oh, did he? Like, okay. Like, but it's not something that's not in my mind, legal action or, you know, pressure from people.
I have seen it. I'm seeing it happen.
I was supposed to appear with someone. They pulled out.
They're like, oh, you're too hot. Like, and I was like, I don't think you mean that in a nice way, like kind of thing.
Um, I, and, and, and to, is, do you feel pressure not to keep doing what you're doing? I don't feel pressure to stop doing what we're doing. I think what I feel is concern, um, for the, the legal and digital and physical safety of my staff.
Um, I, I worry, like I'm, I'm a mom. I.
I have a family, and I bring my mom energy to work, and I care about them. I worry about them.
I worry about myself and my family to a degree. And of course, I worry about it, but the thing is, there's nothing inaccurate about the journalism.
There is no... Everything have said before, I mean, and this is such a cliche thing for an editor in chief to say, but we stand by the reporting.
It is rock solid. There is, there is not a strand that you could pull on that would unravel in some detrimental way.
And so I have to just stick with that and keep going. And I think that's for the entire newsroom.
Yep. I used to tell that to our reporters, you just have to get it right.
It has to be right. Yeah, it has to be right.
You cannot make a mistake with these people because the minute you make even just the slightest one, you know, you have an Achilles heel showing them they will come for you. And that's what they'll do.
But still, there are issues. I think you're right to be concerned about digital issues, about hacking, about legal attacks and stuff like that.
And so that's why it's all the more courageous for what you and others are doing in terms of, and keep going. Keep going for big balls.
I don't, you know, and the fact that you couldn't, I'm sorry, it was so good. We shouldn't laugh at this, but come on.
How good is.lc. I know.
And big balls. Two things I am very sorry that I have to keep saying on TV interviews and podcasts.
You like it a little bit. Oh, I love it.
You love doing it. Okay, that's the show.
We'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot. I will read us out.
Today's show was produced by Lara Neyman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Enderdot engineered this episode.

Nishat Kirwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio.

Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.

Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media.

You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod.

We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

Thank you, Katie.

Thank you.