Trump's Tariffs, Elon's Government Takeover, and OpenAI's New Funding

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. This message comes from Rinse.
These days, you can do a lot from your phone. Book a vacation, trade stocks, but you can also make your dirty laundry disappear and then reappear, washed and folded with Rinse.
Schedule a pickup with the Rinse app and before you know it, your clothes back, folded, and ready to wear. They even do dry cleaning.
Sign up now and get $20 off your first order at Rinse.com. That's R-I-N-S-E dot com.
And I also occasionally, if I have both a gummy and a couple makers in ginger, I put in my AirPods and I dance danced 80s music without my shirt on. Can you put a camera in your house so I can watch that? Hi, everyone.
This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Cara Swisher, and I am in San Francisco and was on a flight last night having to read about Doge working all weekend taking over the government.
Good to see you, Kara. I'm so tired.
Why are you back in San Francisco? Oh, I have a bunch of things to do here. I'm speaking in front of a group from Columbia University Journalism School.
I've got some appointments. I've got a whole bunch of stuff I'm doing here in San Francisco.
I like to come and visit the place every now and then to find out what's going on here. I do.
I do. I don't have a lot of time here this time, but I'm excited to be here.
Anyway, it was a long weekend. Listen, this whole Doge thing has got me off to a bad start, but I am glad I'm in San Francisco.
That's for sure. How are you doing? Good.
I'm about to get on a plane for Orlando.

Oh, nice.

Yeah.

I have a speaking gig at Walt Disney World.

What?

Yeah.

Don't ask.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I just go where they send me.

Which place?

What's that?

Why?

Who is at Walt Disney World?

They do a lot of conventions there, I guess.

I don't know.

Foreigners? I don't know. I don't know what's going on there.
I just know I'm gone. And then I spend a day there, and then I go to New York for three or four days, and I'm back.
Oh, nice. That's really nice.
Yeah. Yeah, February's going to be a big month.
It's going to be a big month, and it has been in Washington, as I said. But it's just, it seems very active.
It used to be a lot slower in the winter. Now it seems crazy.
Maybe just I'm tired from flying all night and then being here. Yeah.
I don't know. I don't, you spend, it's interesting, as close as we are professionally and personally, we are never in the same place.
You spend most of your time in D.C. and San Francisco, and I am never in am never in DC or San Francisco.
Well, that's why we're so close, you see. Yeah, but it's funny you say that.
So just to bring this back to me, I have a really nice relationship with my sister. She's my dad's daughter by his third marriage.
I'm the son by his second marriage. And I'm convinced one of the reasons that we're so close now is that we didn't live in the same household.
I've always been shocked by how many siblings are not that close, even though they're both really good people. And I'm convinced it's because something traumatic happens.
It creates a fissure when they're living together as children. And when you're a sibling, you feel that familial bond, but the fact that you never lived together, I don't know.
She looks like a different species. She's attractive.
She's blonde. She kind of looks, I was joking, she looks like Aryan youth.
She has big, beautiful blue eyes and platinum blonde hair. Okay.
All right. That's an interesting reference.
Okay. Yeah, she likes that.
Oh, all right. She likes that.
Yeah, I'm sure. We have a lot to get to today.
May I start off by saying something? Someone who is a big listener of ours wrote me, and someone they knew died in that plane crash and said we were a little too glib about the plane crash making it political. And I thought about it, and I really do think we were trying hard to separate it from the politics, and there's no getting around it.
This is a terrible tragedy of people dying. And I get it.
For a lot of people, it's been turned into a political thing. And maybe we did a little bit more than we should have because we said we weren't going to.
So I wanted to bring that up. I don't know how you feel about that.
But I wanted to say these families are finally finding everybody there. They still have not found everybody in the Potomac.
But reading these stories this week of these families was really heartbreaking. I found it.
I found it very heartbreaking. Yeah.
It's impossible not, that's an impossible, I don't want to call it accusation, but it's an impossible comment to not land. Because if you knew somebody on one of those flights, you're devastated, right? They're losing a loved one unexpectedly in such a harsh spectacle.
I can't imagine any of those people, including their families, are ever going to be the same again. You know, my view is, taking a step back, I mean, it was sort of like when the wildfires came, I think, oh, at least the point I was trying to make, I won't put words in your mouth, is that rather than, I would argue, empathy for the people on, you know, who lost their homes or the people who lost their lives, the left says it's climate change, the right says it's DEI.
In this instance, the right mostly, the left was mostly quiet. The right was, this is DEI.
And it's just a shame that a lot of that empathy gets some bullshit nods from people, thoughts and prayers, and they immediately go to how can I politicize this? And our point was, or not your, our point, my point is the following. The FAA is arguably one of the most successful government agencies in history.
And as someone who's invested in aviation, the error rate you have to test to is 10 to the negative eighth to get civil aviation aircraft certified to fly passengers. I mean, in the ability at any moment, there's something like 7,000 planes in the air, in our airspace.
And the fact that they're able to minimize or keep the number of these horrific tragedies, it is more dangerous to walk up your stairs to get on a plane. No, I get that.
I get it. And just let me finish here.
I am not a fan of DEI. I've said in the university setting, I think that apparatus should be disassembled.
I think in the corporate setting, there is absolutely still a role for DEI. And people don't realize that the removal of DEI will impact veterans' ability to get jobs.
But in the instance of, if you were to say that the DEI has infected the FAA, then all you could say is, based on the performance of the FAA, then DEI should be incorporated into every organization. Because whatever the FAA has been doing the last 30 or 40 years has resulted in outstanding metrics.
But I just want to circle back. I feel whoever wrote that, I trust and hope that— It's a big fan of ours.
Yeah, I apologize sincerely if in any way our comments come across this course. That was not our intention.
Yeah, not at all. Let me just say, i would avail myself someone sometimes you can complain about media but these stories about these people and i read a bunch of them are wonderful especially this you know this group of skaters and friends and um it's uh you know i i know plane crashes do get more attention than other things.
And as you say, not as many people die.

But it's such a sort of horrific way to die. And the way it becomes spectacle is also horrific.
But let's just remember, there's people on this flight. That's all I want to say.
I did that after 9-11, too. I read so many of the biographies and stuff like that.
And you don't do that for everybody every day of the year who dies. But in that case, it gives you a real sense of mortality when those happens to everybody.
And it just was, anyway, we're sorry. That was not our intent.
And let's hope we figure out what happened and stop accidents like that because Scott is right. Our air travel is safe comparatively going forward.
Anyway, we've got a lot to get today. Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend, slapping 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico and 10% on China's products set to go into effect this week.
What do you think, Scott? Well, just on a human level, for the first time in my life, and this is an odd feeling and it's a mix of shame and surprise, I'm rooting for Canada, not the U.S. So let's start with the tariffs and let's do a strong man or steel man.
His argument is that countries, the America has been too soft and that America should command the space it occupies and charge more and create a revenue source for access to what is the largest economy in the world. And that our trade agreements have been asymmetric, and that is we have been taken advantage of.
First, my personal experience, having literally done business in almost every Western nation and even negotiated agreements between private companies and world leaders, America flexes its power every fucking day. I mean, the notion that somehow we're always on the wrong end of deals, when you show up, almost every trade agreement, we have 700 military bases in 80 countries.
China has one in Djibouti. And you think we just asked for those? You think we just said, hey, wouldn't it be a great idea to have a military base? We flex our power every day.
So first, the base notion that somehow we've been getting taken advantage of is literally comical. Now, let's talk about the tariffs themselves.
You could make the argument, all right, with China. The argument would be, and I'm trying to call balls and strikes here, a lot of the tariffs initially imposed in the first Trump administration were actually kept in place by Biden.
This takes it to such a deeper, weirder level because, for example, with Canada, 25 percent, this will just immediately raise prices for both nations. The definition of stupid is you hurt yourself and you hurt others.
In addition, you don't think China might get a military base at Colombia at some point?

You don't think Canada?

Canada, the Canadian embassy in Tehran, those people risked their lives to try and covertly

get American hostages out of Iran.

They risked their lives because Canada sees themselves as friends, brothers, siblings of America. They followed us into Afghanistan.
They followed us into Iraq. We have Major League Baseball National Basketball Association teams in Canada.
It's more than an ally. They are with us.
And Canada right now can't even answer the question, what do you want from us? What's the end game here? Why didn't you call us your good friend and say, this is our concern and this is what we're trying to achieve? I don't even think they know. They can't even answer the question, what is his end game here in this bullshit that, well, we've got to reduce the level of fentanyl? You can sort of make that argument against China and Mexico.
You can't make it against Canada. Yeah.
He wants to be the 51st state. There's that thrown in there that Canada should.
So, okay, you've managed to raise prices to diminish the quality of life of a friend, to diminish goodwill that has been built up over 150 years, and it's just going to raise consumer prices, it's not only reckless, it is literally the definition of stupid is doing something that hurts others and hurts yourself, especially the one against Canada. I can sort of see the argument, at least theoretically, about the drug trade and fentanyl coming through Mexico.

Fine.

The immigrants, the 250,000 people coming over the border, maybe China.

I can sort of make an argument.

I still don't think it's smart.

But the tariffs against Canada?

Right.

All right.

I mean, the Mexican president, who seems much more aggressive than previous presidents, was making the point, stop wanting drugs so much. Do something about your own drug problem within the country and the demand, which you never do.
There has been an effort by the Mexican government to slow all that down, right? There has been progress made. Just to note, we recorded this episode on Monday morning.
Since then, Mexico has announced that it has struck a deal with the Trump administration to put tariffs on hold for a month, which is exactly what Mark Cuban said would happen. But again, this seems like in Trump's head, and I've read economist after economist, that it's just like this is the world's worst thing to happen to everybody, and it will be a tax.
You know, there were a couple of anchors who just doesn't seem to know math. It'll be a tax on the American consumer that they're not going to get through tax breaks because the tax breaks are going to the very wealthy.
They're not going to. And this is a direct tax on the American consumer.
It's really quite something. And the price of everything, all this weird, I had no idea that so much stuff.
And I know that we're doing lots of trade vaguely, but in terms when you start to get the specifics of what we import, fresh fruits and vegetables, gas, obviously maple syrup, things like that. But some of it, cars that go back and forth across the border.
I was vaguely aware of that. But it's really, we are, they aren't the 51st state, but they sure as hell aren't just another country.
That is true. And I think the same with Mexico.
We have so much trade with them. And there was a hope that we'd put more technology engineering there so it was closer and less at risk than in China, right? He thinks it's a negotiating tactic.
And one of the things, let me look it up, Mark Cuban said, which I thought was smart, is that he'll make some calls and call them off right away and then declare victory, essentially. You know, do a pinky promise that, I think that's what he said, that he was tough and then he can take his win and go home, essentially, which it sounded like a pretty reasonable idea of what this idiot's going to do, essentially.
If you were to game theory this out, the most likely outcome is that immediately you're going to see a spike in prices or near immediately. A lot of companies have been stockpiling.
I was on the board of a retailer and I was speaking to the CEO the other day and he said, yeah, the tariffs in China, we knew they were coming. So we've been stockpiling things and trying to get them in until this gets solved.
So I actually don't think you're going to see price increases as quickly as people think. Maybe we will, but we will see price increases.
And then he will come up with some sort of, he'll declare victory and say he got something and most likely rolled them back somewhat or all. That's the most likely scenario.
What we're not thinking about is that people have memories, people have egos, and we're no longer a trusted ally. We no longer can be counted on.
You're going to see that the Canadians are going to be more likely to import BYD electric vehicles. Consists from China, for people who don't know.
And what's interesting about this, and it gets more Machiavellian and mendacious as you look at it, it's clear Musk's fingerprints are all over this. Because if you look at Tesla, they actually have, to their credit, the greatest manufacturing depth.
What do I mean by that? If you're an American car maker, sometimes certain car parts or components literally go up and down Canada and cross Mexican borders six, eight, ten times. There's tariffs going to be everywhere in American automobile companies, except Tesla.
The majority of their parts are manufactured vertically here in the S. The majority of the automobiles they sell in China, which would be subject to the reciprocal tariffs that China is going to impose on American products, the majority of Tesla sold in China are actually manufactured in China.
Now, and Tesla is suing Europe for their 7.5% tariff they put on Tesla sold, manufactured in China. So actually these tariffs, in my view, were massaged and written and negotiated to a certain extent by Elon Musk.
Yeah. Because what this amounts to in the automobile industry is it's going to seriously impair U.S.
auto companies, but it's not going to impair Tesla. But this is what people don't realize.
He'll try and get some sort of political win, flex his muscle, America's back. But the amount of goodwill that we are eroding long term, this isn't how you operate a business.

This isn't how you operate a country.

No, it's called distributed negotiations where one is a winner and a loser.

I was reading a whole thing about his negotiating style, which doesn't work on the international stage.

This is what Cuban said.

He's going to say, pinky swear you will protect our border and buy more booze and stuff from us. They will say yes, won't actually buy this stuff, and he will declare victory, Trumponomics.
And long term, they're just not going to be as inclined to coordinate, cooperate with our central intelligence agency when there's a terrorist threat cell in their country. The reason the U.S.
is the most powerful nation in the world is for a variety of reasons. Our geography and our natural resources, our IP, but also the incredible amount of admiration and goodwill our allies have for us.
Let's listen to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau essentially called Trump's actions a betrayal of our alliance, which you just said. Together, we've built the most successful economic, military, and security partnership the world has ever seen.
A relationship that has been the envy of the world. Yes, we've had our differences in the past, but we've always found a way to get past them.
As I've said before, if President Trump wants to usher in a new golden age for the United States, the better path is to partner with Canada, not to punish us. Anyway, that's a very good thing.
He's also gaining. He's had to leave because of pressure from conservatives, too.
And now they're all joined together. Just some more things.
And then one more next thing. Larry Summers has called the tariffs against Canada and Mexico inexplicable and dangerous.
He's usually right about things. He's an economist, obviously, well, not an economist.
Trump acknowledged it could cause some pain, but how bad could it get? As we said, alcohol, food, cars, toys, pretty much everything. These tariffs will also target that de minimis provision that allows packages of less than $800 to ship to the U.S.
duty-free. That loophole has been a boon for Sheen, Temu, and others.
I suspect he'll be a paper tiger here, correct? I mean, do you imagine? I think that he's going to do exactly what Mark says. Well, a senator that both of us know heard our comments and our disappointment in the Democratic Party around messaging and hitting back and called me and said, well, what would you do? And I'm like, don't play the indignance card.
Don't talk about all these federal employees being laid off. Don't be outraged.
Have five or six different items, whether it's eggs, whether it's lumber, whether it's a toy, I don't know what, you know, a car, a new Chevrolet, and have it on the DNC website and just every day announce what the prices are. Inflation is number one on people's minds.
That's what they promise to bring prices down. And I don't see any way around how interest rates or prices don't immediately or near immediately tick up.
And that's what impacts people every day. And that's what he promised to immediately bring down as we were going to bring prices down immediately.
This is, I don't get the end game here. I don't.
Because he was. He was prices down and tax cuts, I think.
And none of those things are on the thing. It's DEI, the FAA, and tariffs and destroying the government, essentially, which seems to be taking advantage of his chaotic friend, Elon Musk, or helping.
Well, and all of these stories that would have made huge news and had real scrutiny. One, there's fewer journalists to cover them, and you flood the zone with all of this stuff.
By the way, these tax cuts they're talking about, just so you know, Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway are getting a tax cut. Anyone else on this show that makes less than $300,000 a year is getting a tax hike.
So these tax cuts, again, done under the cover of flooding the zone, are going to cut taxes on people making over, the people making over $300,000 will get a small tax cut, people making over $800,000 or a million bucks a year about to get a pretty nice tax cut. Is that what you voted for? More, more wealth, more wealth for the 1%, but no one's even talking about it because everything seems even more outrageous.
We, it is, there's so many things here that we can't, the media, and I don't think consumers can absorb it. And that was their strategy.
In some ways, it's sort of mendaciously brilliant. Just, oh, slip in a tax cut for the rich because they're going to be focused on all this stuff over here, all our accusations of DEI and the things we're doing at the CDC.
Distraction, distraction. There's just so much here.
And one thing feels more strange, weird, reckless, economically stupid than the next.

They won't notice all this other stuff. Project 2025 is being implemented.
Let me go through the other ones that happened. Over 8,000 U.S.
government websites have been deleted, a result of Trump's order and programs to promote gender ideology. Information about vaccines, hate crimes, and veterans care has been removed.
Among the roofs, 3,000 pages from the CDC, 100 pages from the FDA, 200 pages from Head Start, a program for low-income children, and 1,000 pages from the Department of Justice, a lot around January 6th. Obviously, USAID was the other thing that was happening.
Looks like they're closing it down. They went in over the weekend and took control of the agency, which they're trying to close down.

Apparently Elon said on X, on Spaces, I guess, that they are closing it down. And they also tweeted, it should die.
It was a criminal organization making all kinds of accusations. It sounds like he has a band of teenagers, young people helping him do this.
Troublesome. They are claiming that nobody without security clearance got access, but it sounds pretty middle of the night on the weekend, which he bragged about saying one of his advantages and superpowers is he works on the weekend.
I work on the weekend, but I don't consider it a superpower. Can we talk about the sites? Yes, let's go to the sites.
Well, I've always maintained, so for example, there was an HIV transmission calculator. And I've maintained that actually, I don't think Trump is homophobic.
I'm not even sure it's fair to say that their policies are misogynistic. What I think their policies are, I don't know what the right term is here.
I don't think this is a war on women. I don't think it's a war on gay people.
I think it's a war on poor people. And if you have, the CDC had an HIV transmission calculator.
And if you're a young man discovering your sexuality and you live with a single mother, you don't have a lot of money, maybe you dropped out of high school. It's important that these kids have this information about PrEP and PEP and what certain types of sex result in transmission of HIV.
It's important that if you have an STD and you find out that you're pregnant, what that means and what treatment are available. And all those sites have been taken down.
Now, who does that impact? Would it impact my son? No. It impacts poor kids.
It impacts poor women. And it's the definition of censorship and purposely regressing and taking us back.
It feels like it's not, I don't think it's a war on women or LGBTQ. It's a war on poor women.
Oh, come on, Scott. I'm sorry.
It is. It's a war on lots of things.
The stuff they're taking down across the government is, it's not just poor people. They're trying to like abrogate, to eliminate other, anyone else that has, remember, they're taking down like, they have Black History Month or Gay Pride Month.
But who does it impact? Well, that kind of stuff, it's the same message. If you read Project 2025, it's not just, of course it impacts poor people, but it also impacts the idea of any kind of identity beyond, you know, veterans need to veteran.
You know, CDC needs to CDC. Don't talk about anything else.
It's an idea that has driven them crazy, which is that we should celebrate diversity, I guess. You know, it's a broader obsession that they have with this issue.
And that's how you led to sort of the FAA thing, which is it had to be diversity, equity, inclusion that caused these crashes, even though we haven't had a crash in a very, very long time when those things were in place, which probably is a tragic accident. You know, that's really what it is, and that's what happens in life.
But I think it's a bigger ideological attack of things they're trying to eliminate in schools. Let me just say, my kids in a public school in D.C., I am very nervous they're going to start meddling with the education system.
She came home and she said, oh, I learned the word diverse today. And I said, what does that mean to you? And she goes, oh, they were all different.
And she wasn't using race. She was like, oh, we're all different people from each other.
And it's good to have differences and it's good to have things in common. It was a very, like, you know, chalk, vanilla, strawberry way of thinking about it.
But I was like, oh, they're going to take that out of her education, just the word, which was frightening in a lot of ways, you know. I think it's a bigger issue, you know, taking the word diversity out of preschool.
No, I know. I think they're going to do a lot of meddling in education.
Well, let me finish. I think in terms of actual damage on the ground, not letting, having information around vaccines for new mothers who may not have access to, you know, formal education, not having access to information around STDs, not having access to information around HIV transmission, not having access to who you can contact if you think your landlord is unfairly abusing you and won't give you your deposit back.
I generally believe America, even under Trump, that rich people continue to have more rights at the expense of poor people. And I think that's the basic fulcrum and the injustice in our society right now.
I think the majority of the people who are in special interest groups, as long as you have money, I think you're fine. This to me is just a war on poor people.
I agree with you, it's ideologically driven, but what they've said is in order to execute it, we're going to give rich people a pass on all these things. They will still have access to medical abortions.
They will still have access to lawyers to ensure they have civil rights. They will still have access to marriage if they want it.
They're fine. It's poor people who are going to bear the brunt of all this ideological weirdness.
I very much think they're going to go after marriage. This is the hallmarks of all of it.
I think they're going to go after that. They're trying to get it to the Supreme Court, just like they did with affirmative action.
They're trying to get libel cases with the press. This obsession about gender ideology has really twisted them in a way that's really, it's just twisted them in ways that I think is much more at the heart of ideology than just, let's attack the poor people.
I think they have a real, they want to push back

so much of the stuff that has happened over the past couple of years, probably including among their children and everything else. So we'll see where it goes.
But taking down pages is really just about, it seems so needlessly cruel. Let's go on a quick break.
When we come back, we'll talk about winners and losers from the latest round of big tech earnings. We'll talk a little bit more about what

Musk is doing by being

not the second president, the president. Nowadays, you can do a lot from your phone.
Things from booking a vacation, buying and trading stocks, even ordering a car for yourself. But did you know that you can make your dirty laundry disappear and then reappear washed and folded? Yup, and all it takes is rinse.
You can schedule a pickup with the Rinse app, and before you know it, your clothes are back, folded, and ready to wear. They even do dry cleaning.
Sign up now and get $20 off your first order at Rinse.com. That's R-I-N-S-E dot com.

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.
Craft is where function meets style. It's where precision meets performance performance it's where doing it yourself meets showing the world what you're capable of the all-new accurate adx is a compact suv crafted to take you where you need to go without any compromises with available google built-in all-wheel drive and a 15 speaker bangof-some premium sound system, the all-new ADX is crafted to be as alive to the world's possibilities as you are.
The all-new ADX, crafted to match your energy. Acura, precision crafted performance.
Learn more at Acura.com. Scott, we're back.
We're recording this Monday morning. The U.S.
markets just opened a little while ago, and the Dow dropped 600 points. NASDAQ is down 2%, S&P down around 1.75%.
Global stocks are also plunging. Scott, what do you think about this? Not a surprise.
The market is a sober arbiter and has done the math really quickly. Everybody loses over the medium and long term with tariffs.
Yes. Wall Street thinks you're an idiot, Donald Trump.
It's been a few busy days for tech earnings also. Let's go through it to sort of line us up for that.
Apple reported blockbuster earnings for its most recent quarter, but the numbers show a slight dip in year-over-year iPhone revenue.

Probably not a surprise, showing Apple intelligence did not boost sales that they had hoped, although it introduced sort of at the end of the quarter. Microsoft reported a 12% year-over-year rise in revenue, although its cloud business is slowing.
And Meta beat expectations with revenue rising 21% in the last quarter. Really big performance from Meta.
Tesla mostly missed expectations on earnings and revenue, with $25 billion in quarterly revenue. Automotive revenue fell 8%.
These earnings were announced during the initial deep-seek frenzy last week. There's questions about the AI spending plans.
Microsoft has earmarked $80 billion for AI this year, while Meta has pledged as much of $65 billion. Let's talk about, obviously, tariffs probably may or may not affect them.
And at the same time, they've pledged fealty to Trump in one way or another. Another thing to throw in is Meta's reporting in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, according to the Wall Street Journal, out of Delaware.
It has to do with certain lawsuits that Mark Zuckerberg is facing, I believe. But Texas seems to be the place where they all have, is there safe space? Thoughts about the earnings? Yeah, like they continue to do, I mean, all of them.
It just went from sort of better, you know, good, better, best. I don't think you've seen any chill around earnings.
The thing I find most interesting is that all of them have essentially said we're going big at AI, except for Apple in terms of CapEx. And no one is thinking that Apple is the dumb one right now.
Apple said we're going to take sort of a wait and see approach and we're going to leverage other people's technology and investments. And Apple just continues to, you know, sort of overperform.
And then the other one is, uh, meta using their kind of AI ad technology. They continue to serve more ads, more targeted, more effective.
It's almost like what Tim Cook did to Meta was similar to what we did to China around AI. And that is we forced, or Tim Cook with their opt-in kind of trying to kneecap Meta actually inspired them to figure out a workaround where now their ad stack is much more robust and much more AI driven.
And just as we held kind of sophisticated chip technology from China, which forced them to come up with a work around that might in fact disrupt American AI, Apple sort of is, no one is criticizing Apple now for not making these enormous announcements about just these staggering investments. Do you see any effect of the deep seek? That came at the end of the quarter, obviously, and it did shake up the stock market and people worried about the spending.
This is my thesis right now, and is that similar that AI may be like, I mean, there's three layers to AI, loosely speaking, buckets. There's the infrastructure layer, the NVIDIA guys.
There's the LLMs, the Anthropics, the Open AIs, perplexity in there. And then there's the application layer, an Expedia or an Airbnb or whoever comes up with AI to do more sophisticated things and make their services better.
They're the customer layer. I wonder if this is going to end up being like the airline industry and the PC industry, where there's a massive increase in economic value and productivity, but no one company is able to capture the majority of revenues similar to the way people are banking that Microsoft, OpenAI, and NVIDIA are going to be able to capture it.
Now, Intel captured a ton of revenue and shareholder value because they were the brains inside of PCs. I was on the board of Gateway Computer.
Do you remember them? Oh, of course, Ted Waite. Yeah.
Okay, get this. PCs changed the world.
You were on that board? What? I was on the board of Gateway Computer. I know.
Talk about the weakest flex in the world. No wonder what happened to it.
No, sorry. Sorry, did I say that? Anyways, so we were the second largest manufacturer of computers.
Think about it. If someone had said 100 years ago, PCs or 50 years,

PCs, these supercomputers that cost the government billions of dollars, we're going to be able to put one on every desk. What would the market cap of that company be? PC manufacturers, Dell for a little while, but not anyone else, Lenovo, Asus, Compaq, Packard Belt, remember all these companies? None of them got anywhere, maybe with the exception of Dell, in a product that revolutionized the world.
That's true. That's a really good analogy.
God, you come up with a good one. Every once in a while, right? You really do.
I hadn't thought about that. Well, I'm not done.
I'm not done. So the airline industry, I'm about to get on a plane and in eight and a half hours, I'm going

to be in fucking Disney World for like, now granted, I'm going to spend a shit ton of money because I'm a narcissist, but I could do it for $400. I could skirt along the surface of the atmosphere at eight tenths the speed of sound for almost no money, almost no money, as opposed to getting scurvy or having to eat my niece through the passage of the Andes or the Rockies, which they had to do 150 years ago.
Commercial jet transportation. Not willingly, but go ahead.
You see what I'm saying? Yes. Commercial jet transportation has been remarkable.
And guess what? The airlines have lost more money than they've made because there's no barriers of entry. Everyone copied each other and all of the value was recognized by the general public.
And I now believe, after what I saw with DeepSeek, by the way, I just fucking loved that Sam Altman was copying everything and then someone copied him. Karma's a bitch, Sam.
Anyways, this might be a tectonic shift. And I'm drunk on this idea.
I'm intoxicated by this idea that AI might be the airline or the PC industry where there's an enormous value created and it's all captured by consumers and the public and the commonwealth. But no one company is able to capture the trillions of dollars in value that we become used to in big tech.
So who's the Microsoft? Who's the Google? Anyway, you most noted OpenAI. They're in talks to raise $40 billion in a funding round which would value the company as high as $300 billion.
SoftBank would lead the round investing between $15 and $25 billion. There was several good Masayoshi Son things.
I'd forgotten how much success he's had, too, even though he's had so many disasters. He's like one or the other.
It's fascinating. I looked at Lionel Barber's book called Gambling Man, which was really quite good.
I recommend it. OpenAI was valued at $157 billion in October.
Meanwhile, Sam is giving competition some credit on Reddit. In AMA this weekend, when asked if OpenAI would show users all of the thinking steps, Altman said yes and give credit to R1, also known as DeepSeek.
When after he would consider a more open source approach like Meta's Llama, he said the company was discussing doing so and he feels we've been on the wrong side of history. What do you think of him admitting the company needs to make changes and, of course, this fundraising round?

He certainly moves fast, I'll tell you that.

I have never heard a bell signaling the top like the fucking gong of Masiyoshi San saying he's going to invest $50 billion in OpenAI.

$15 billion.

I read that it was going to be as much as $45 billion.'s $15. No, $15 and $25 billion.
There's a $40 billion fundraising, and he's going to be $15 or $25 billion of it. So $15 of a $40 billion round at a valuation I read that is greater than the valuation on ByteDance right now at somewhere between $300 and $350 billion.
Yes, that's correct. So when Masayoshi-san says, we need to be crazy, he's living up to it.
I think this will go down as arguably in terms of gross tonnage, gross capital lost. I think this is just so fucking ridiculous.
Not a fan. You're thinking WeWork here versus one of the others where he's made a ton of money.
WeWork was renting desk space. It wasn't a tech company.
This is a tech company. There's a non-zero probability that given how smart Sam is, given this unbelievable technology, which I am using 50 times a day, they will figure out a way.
I don't see how it right now, given the fact that the Chinese appear to have come up with something very robust for a fraction or less, the lack of barriers of entry, the regulatory issues. I don't see how this is today one of the 15 most valuable companies in the world.
Now, what they're saying is for Masayoshi-san to get his limited partners, the return they expect with the risk here, he's saying this will be one of the five or seven most valuable companies within three years in the world. This to me is an asymmetrically incredibly bad bet.
And he is known for, and to be fair, he did ARM. He had a big win there.
He's had some wins. But his vision funds, his vision funds have underperformed the market.
He himself is a great entrepreneur. SoftBank or his telco has done really well.
But the funds themselves have underperformed the benchmarks. And to me, this is literally, I saw the valuation here.
And when I look at the risks facing open AI, the fact they have no vertical distribution, they don't, even if AI ends up being as big as it is, even if I'm wrong and there is private company capture along the lines of what cloud and smartphones were, there's so many competitors who have direct distribution or existing relationships, whether it's Microsoft that has a direct relationship with 97% of every corporation over a million dollars in the world, whether it's Apple with their iPhones, whether it's Anthropic, which has a large investment from Amazon, where 80% of households are in a monogamous relationship via Prime. And then there's OpenAI, which Masayoshi-san is telling his limited partners that this valuation is going to be one of the seven most valuable companies in the world in the next 36 months.
I just think it's nuts. And gambling man.
He's a gambling man. There you go.
Yeah, it's really interesting to look at his history because he really has gotten some huge wins and some enormous, and WeWork obviously was his most famous one, but there's been others. What do you think of Sam shifting this? Like shifting, oh yes, deep seek, hmm.
And then also the open source thing. Like a lot of the Facebook people, Jan LeCun was like, huh, interesting.
Because they've been touting, you know, open source, of course, the whole time. I just think if you go to OpenAI right now and type in, what is karma? There's a picture of Sam Altman crawling everyone's information and stealing it.
And then when he goes to sleep, someone crawls his information and steals from him. People have noted that.
I just, I think this is such comeuppance from OpenAI. So what happens to this company? I think it probably ends up being an amazing company, doing amazing things.
And the limiteds at the Vision Fund go, what the fuck were we thinking investing at $350 billion valuation? I don't, this guy is so good. The technology is so amazing.
I'm not suggesting it's not going to be an incredible company. Not a WeWork is what you're saying.
Not a WeWork. WeWork was literally the definition of insanity.
Let's create an app for scheduling the conference room and call ourselves a tech company. Let's buy office space for a million dollars and lease it out at 200,000 a year, just to show growth.
That'd make no fucking sense. There is a non-zero probability here that they lead the revolution that's the most seminal change in technology in history.
I am now betting that the majority of that capture is going to be by the larger economy. And based on the fact they have no vertical distribution, based on the fact that China has popped up and said, hey, we're here again.
And guess what? We're making similar shit for cheaper, as we've always done, based on the fact their competitors have vertical distribution. Stupid fucking idea.
If he raises money, if they were raising money at 50 billion, I'd try, I'd be calling Moss and say, I think you're amazing. I've been a Sprint customer back from the 90s.
Can I get on this deal? At 350 billion? Yeah, it was $157 in October.

So that is kind of a leap at this time. You know, I think one thing that OpenAI and Sam Alton have is this ability to be flexible and say one thing on Tuesday and a very different thing on Thursday, you know, whatever it takes.
The open source thing is sort of interesting as they move forward. Obviously, Microsoft won that open-close thing with Apple many years ago, although you would say you'd rather have been Apple in many ways.
So it'll be interesting what will happen to this company. I sort of wonder, you know, I've always thought, is it Netscape or is it Google? That's always been my question about them.
And it'll be really interesting to see how he navigates himself. What do you think? I have not done enough reporting to understand what's happening here.
When you see him saying we've been on the wrong side of history, that's quite a statement, right? What does that mean precisely? Consider a more open source approach. He better hurry.
That's all I have to say if he's going to want to dominate that. And in that case, it's not quite the same company, but it is hard.
As you said, vertical distribution is critical, I think, here. If you're going to do anything, maybe a merger.
I kept thinking a merger with someone, Microsoft, Apple, someone like that. Yeah, but no one's going to pay $350 billion for it.
Yeah, no one's going to pay $300 billion. I'm not going to pay too much for this muffler.
Yeah, it's a good muffler. And by the way, the people investing in that round, they're not looking for $350 billion.
They're looking for a trillion back. And guess what? If I type into OpenAI or ChatGPT and the voice of Kara Swisher specifically referencing Chapter 7 on, you know, whatever it is, Microsoft from her book Burn Book, it's remarkably accurate in your voice referencing that chapter.
They have crawled your book. They are using your IP without paying you.
So DeepSeek, bring it on. Copy that bitch's shit.
Do to him what he's been doing to us. I am so here for DeepSeek.
It is so weird to be rooting for a Chinese company, the Canadians, and the Germans. You're rooting for the Chinese, the Canadians, and the Germans.
Anyway, let's go on a quick break. We come back more on Elon's hostile takeover of the U.S.
government. Craft is where function meets style.
It's where precision meets performance. It's where doing it yourself meets showing the world what you're capable of.
The all-new Acura ADX is a compact SUV crafted to take you where you need to go without any compromises. With available Google built-in, all-wheel drive, and a 15-speaker bang and all-of-some premium sound system, the all-new ADX is crafted to be as alive to the world's possibilities as you are.
The all-new ADX, crafted to match your energy. Acura, precision crafted performance.
Learn more at Acura.com. Last week, we at Today Explained brought you an episode titled The Joe Rogan of the Left.

The Joe Rogan of the Left was in quotations.

It was mostly about a guy named Hassan Piker, who some say is the Joe Rogan of the Left.

But enough about Joe.

We made an episode about Hassan because the Democrats are really courting this dude.

So Hassan Piker is really the only major prominent leftist on Twitch, at least the only one who talks about politics all day what's going on everybody i hope everyone's having a fantastic evening afternoon pre-new no matter where they want his co-sign they want his endorsement because he's young and he reaches millions of young people streaming on youtube tiktok and especially twitch but last week he was streaming us yeah i was i was listening on stream and you guys were like, hey, you should come on the show if you're listening. I was like, oops, caught.
You're a listener. Yeah.
Oh, yeah, I am. Yeah.
Thank you for listening. Head over to the Today Explained feed to hear Hassan Piker explain himself.
Scott, we're back. Elon Musk's Doge now has access, as I said, to the federal payment system.
Musk criticized the U.S. Treasury Department.
Obviously, they're trying to close down USAID. He said he's doing it on instructions from President Trump, and he's doing what he said.
They're saying that there's stuff, obviously, the concern is privacy and sensitive and classified information being accessed by a bunch of kids. That's a worry.
That's sort of been a narrative around over the weekend. Obviously, the way they did it was sort of in the middle of the weekend.
They crashed in, all kinds of people left and tried to stop them. It's quite a dramatic thing.
And then Congress has no ability to stop him in some way. It is concerning that the world's richest man and a private citizen that has contracts with massive contracts with the federal government has this much access, and now seemingly has the power to close down entire departments.
They think it's a, obviously, I'm doing a on with some of the experts of what he did at Twitter and is doing here. But it is one way to take over a government is to be doing this.
And of course, they're arguing that they're trying to save money and it's the only way to do it, but they're flinging all kinds of unsupportable allegations about different things. But of course, that chaos is part of the plan here.
Any thoughts on this? Well, when you have the world's richest man who can deny people there's, you know, get in the way of their Medicare, Social Security, veterans benefits unilaterally based on his crew that shows up. I mean, it's the ultimate we complain about regulatory capture and private capture we richest man in the world does now have access to who gets money from the federal government without the approval or the oversight of our elected representatives so again there's just so much crazy going on that we never thought we would see that people don't seem to be,

they're just, they're, you know, it's triage right now. There's so many incoming projectiles at everybody that they don't know how to respond and absorb this.
But he is now kind of the puppet master. And the notion that he can go into a website and turn off payments for social services or government services or shut off foreign aid at his sole discretion.
It's just- So he says he's doing it on the president's orders. Well, that's fair because he's appointed by the president and the president can remove him.
But my impression is based on the tariffs, the market's reaction to taking a stock op, that basically, okay, you have one guy who the president has entrusted to make these decisions real time. And one of the downsides or the upsides of a bureaucracy, and what people would argue correctly is sometimes an inefficient government, is that we don't let any power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.
And what we have here is absolute power. And what do you know? It's the world's wealthiest man.
And it goes back to the same thing. There has to be a check on this American experience where we just have decided that money translates to not only power, but to rights.
And we are transferring more and more wealth, which subsequently means more and more power, and probably most obsidianly, more and more rights at the expense of poor people. And what's going to happen to every company that isn't owned by Musk? And I look at these tariffs and I'm like, this is brilliant.
He's figured out a way to create a tariff that pretty much exempts Tesla.

Everyone was like, well, Tesla sells a lot of cars in China. No, all the cars being sold in China are manufactured in China.
They're not subject to tariffs. Anyways, I find it very distressing and very un-American.
There are very little. It's interesting to see whether you saw those protests in Germany or not seeing them in this country.
But Musk's favorables are quite low, really quite low, considering a lot of people look up to him, which is interesting because it does look, especially with this crew he's got around him, it feels like a movie someone made up, right? Some of this stuff. They're all kids.
They're all kids of some sort that are around him or people that work for, they're all his people that are coming in and demanding to see everything, demanding they're, you know, they're like the evil genius bar, essentially, that's going into all these places. And they did take over what was essentially the genius bar for the government, the U.S.
Digital Service, and they've renamed it the U.S. Doge Service.
And that gives them access. These were already set up, these offices in every federal government facility in every department.
And some of them literally was just a camp counselor. And one kid did this astonishing computing around decoding these ancient scrolls, brilliant people who had brilliant coding skills and brilliant computer skills.
But it's this sort of team. One guy is called Big Balls.
That's his nickname, which I doubt he has them. That's what his nickname is.
I bet they're small balls. It's just the whole thing feels so bizarre and people are freaking out because I don't think many people can do anything, right? What do you do when he does this? It doesn't feel like Congress has a handle on it.
The Democrats do not control Congress. It feels like it's a plain sight just this is how they're going to go through every federal agency and do this unless they're stopped by courts, which is interesting.
Now, Ezra Klein was making a really interesting argument, which I like. I'm going to read from it.
There's a reason Trump is doing all this through executive orders rather than submitting these directives as legislation to pass through Congress. A more powerful executive could persuade Congress to eliminate the spending he opposes or reform the civil service to give himself powers of hiring and firing that he seeks.
To write those changes into legislation would make them more durable and allow them to argue their merits in a more strategic way. Even if Trump's aim is to bring the civil service to heel, to get rid of his opponents and to turn it to his own ends, he would be better off arguing that he is simply trying to bring high-performance management culture of Silicon Valley to the federal government.
You never want a power grab to look like a power grab. I thought that was exactly on point.
I don't know what you think. He's calling it weak.
This is a weak flex. I think almost every life lesson can be extracted from one of the seasons of Game of Thrones.
And I feel like Elon Musk right now is the high sparrow. Oh, that's not good for him.
And Toman is President Trump. It feels to me like Trump is just kind of massaging and coordinating everything here and shows up with these really impressive, probably very hardworking, intensely smart group of people who show total fealty to Musk like a god.
And I bet Trump admires that. And Trump says to him, show that same sort of loyalty to him.
And Trump says, this guy's smart. He fired 80% of Twitter staff.
This is exactly what we need in the government. And they just go at it.
And I don't think at this point, Trump has the regulatory checks to even slow him down unless he were to decide to fire him. So I think he's just going after it so fast and so furious.
He's his junkyard dog. That's what he is.
He doesn't care what he does to get there. Yeah, it just it feels I mean, there's a component of it that I understand.
There's a kernel of like value. You know, it's something has to shake it up.
Something has to shake it up. You can see the importance of shock value.
And occasionally you do need to kind of go in with a hammer, not a scalpel. It strikes me that this is just so reckless that it's going to take, it's going to erode decades.
What do you think the morale is like? Yeah. This is what he did at Twitter.
This is the same tactics. You know, one of the things that, you know, when they were talking about, oh, look, the word fork in the road is in the letter.
Elon Musk wanted you to see that. He wanted you to know it was, you know, it was me.
Tell them it was me. You know what I mean? Like, he wants people to have us to, and the journalists to write that he's trying to copy what he did at Twitter, right? Which is a lot of these moves.
You know, remember he sees the systems, fired people, took over people. There was worries about privacy.
It's the same kind of playbook that he has. They're sleeping in the office.
That's his favorite thing to do. Apparently they have beds at the Office of Personnel Management, bringing in his cronies.
This is the same, you know, it's like watching Fast and Furious over and over again, except they're a bunch of geeks, I guess. This is what he wants to do.
But I agree with you. I think it's really, I do think it's the mark of a loser.
And he wants to be seen as a king. And so he's sicking this guy on people and to scare them.

And I'm not so sure they're so easily scared.

I think this FBI agent that pushed back, a lot of these people at these agencies are pushing back.

And we'll see if Congress has any kind of balls, which they don't in any way.

They kind of like it in some weird way.

The Republicans certainly do. And the concerns of course are privacy and the ability

for these people to download

all this information about people.

We'll see why these

what explanations they have of course

but let's just say Scott

and I don't trust them on First Blush.

Alright, one more quick break. We'll be

back for wins and fails. Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails.
It strikes me that you need a better strategy than showing up at churches and schools and workplaces for these immigration raids. I just find it so ironic that the agencies charge with locating people, okay, starting with people who've been detained for a crime, I get it.
But it just strikes me so ironic that they have determined the place to find these undocumented workers is at work, church, or school. Doesn't that make them the most American of us? I mean, hard workers.
It's so ironic. Largely hard workers.
But it appears that we've decided that if we want to find undocumented workers, we should go to a workplace or they're sending their kids to school or they're going to worship. It's just so, I to worship.
I find it so telling that maybe, I mean, I'm not against deporting people, but I find it illuminating that, okay, we didn't wake up one day and just find out that 17% of people on construction worksites were undocumented workers. And what I don't think we've come to grips with in terms of an honest conversation around this is one, I don't think you can have open borders.
But two, the reason why we have let this go so far is that if the secret sauce of America is immigration, the most profitable part of that secret sauce has been illegal immigration. And we don't want to have an honest conversation about it because they come in, they take care of grandma, they pick our crops, they build our houses.
And then when the work dries up, they leave without taking social security. They pay social security taxes, but they never stick around for social security.
They actually don't lean on our social services because they're worried about being deported. And if you've seen what's happened at construction sites across America, they're empty.
People aren't showing up. So I wonder if this strategy is just of trying to shock and intimidate is very short-sighted and not good for the economy and not going to accomplish what we need to accomplish in terms of having a sane immigration strategy.
That's my, you know, anyways, I'd call it two fails in a row here. The other real fail, again, under the auspices of flooding the zone with mendacious shit.
You know, a foreign aid freeze, I think we spent about $70 billion or about $200 per citizen. And this is some of the things we do.
You know, in Sudan, we support 634 soup kitchens that feed almost a million people. In Thailand and Myanmar, refugee hospitals funded by the U.S.
are closing their doors. Patients with tuberculosis and life-threatening conditions are being carried away on makeshift stretchers.
In Africa, I mean, the Democratic Republic of Congo, where U.S. aid supported 4.5 million displaced people people, we were on the verge of eradicating diseases like malaria malnutrition because of private and public coordination.
In Cambodia, where the U.S. was close to eliminating malaria, officials now fear the disease is making a comeback.
Scott, it's not helping Americans. It's not helping Americans.
That's the stupidest argument. It does help Americans.
I think the majority of Republicans, when if you sat them down and you said, for 200 bucks a year, this is the good we're going to do around the world. And this is the goodwill it's going to create.
And these are the diseases we're going to eradicate. And this is how we're going to find refugees who are displaced in wars, a shot at surviving.
I think the majority of people go, here's $200, right on. I can't even, it's the cruelest.
It's the cruelest and most petty and small-minded of cuts. There's so many cruel and just like cutting, like we talked about last week, cutting the security details of people who worked for this country.
It's so petty. It's so small.
It shows you this shirvel little heart that we have at work here. But let's put the morality aside.
So you decide, look, I want that $200 to go to American kids. Full stop.
Okay, I understand the argument. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
That $200, that void we're leaving, Russia and China are going to step into that void. They're going to find people willing to be allies and who will fund groups.
We have this sense of security, this cold comfort, that there are people out there who would come for us, kill us, and take our shit away. And one of the reasons they don't is because they can't, because generally speaking, the vast majority of nations and the vast majority of people around the world might find us obnoxious, they might find us gluttonous, they might find us arrogant, but they think at the end of the day, we're trying to do the right thing.
That we're the people who are funding that hospital, that when there's refugees, when there are homeless people and there are maternity wards being shelled in Ukraine, that American charities show up. I mean, we're seen as the good guys.
And that pays enormous dividends that we don't recognize because the homeland hasn't been attacked since September 11th. So even if you don't make the moral argument or you don't accept the moral argument, just from a security standpoint, from a geopolitical power standpoint, this is the best 200 bucks.
Canadians are booing us people. Canadians don't boo anybody.
Let's just say Canadians. They're booing us.
They're booing us anyway. All right.
I'll start with mine. My win obviously has to go to Beyonce on her album of the year.
Grammy win. I'm glad you're lighting up.
Watching the Grammys was great. The vibe they had was like, fuck you, all of you.
We're going to be black. We're going to be interesting.
We're going to be talented. We're going to be enjoyable.
There was not a lot of – the vibe was so good at the Grammys. I didn't even know what happened.
They weren't doing a lot of the virtue signaling at all. In fact, they were just like, we're fucking better.
We're cooler. We're so cool.
We are so creative. Anyway, Beyonce's at the top of that.
I love Cowboy Carter. I love that album.
There's a lot of albums I love this year. Kendrick Lamar's I liked a lot.
But this one I really enjoyed and played it over and over again. She's been nominated four times in this category.
This was her first album to win it and deserve it. Go listen to it.
It's really a wonderful album in lots of ways and really fun. Actually, super fun and really moving and everything else.
So congratulations, Beyonce. I know it's been hard for you to make it in this business.
I also really enjoyed watching Taylor Swift dance her ass off throughout. I don't know why she made kind of a little, like an adorable spectacle of herself, dancing with kids, dancing in coats.
And also Janelle Monae did a Michael Jackson. It's everybody.
And Lady Gaga did an amazing duet of California Dreaming with Bruno Mars. Really wonderful.
The whole Grammys was wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. My fail, besides this ridiculous antics of Elon Musk, which continues into the fucking millennial, make Elon go away is a really good thing to happen.
He should go to Mars again. I think he should realize his dream.
We should spend all that foreign aid money we're not spending on sending him to Mars immediately. But was an interview that Mitch McConnell did with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes, which is under attack because the owners are trying to pay off Trump through settling a lawsuit, as we talked about last week.
But this is a great interview with Mitch McConnell, where he goes, you know, she's like, you wrote this and this and this about Trump being a terrible person.

He goes, well, that was a private conversation.

And then she goes, well, it's in your book.

And he's like, yes, it is.

He's just, this guy had every opportunity to stop Trump in a very significant way and did not do so.

And it mystifies me that he could act like he doesn't like him. He doesn't get the right not to.
He facilitated Trump. And to try to pretend he didn't is really, he's a loathsome toad.
He really is of all the people. Because you can't hate someone and then be the reason they're still here and give them the lifeline that he richly did not deserve.
So, Mitch McConnell, you all should go away. You really should.
You've been a real— He did vote against Hegseth, which is kind of— He did, finally. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
I feel like that's Hannibal Lecter deciding he's a vegan on his deathbed. I know.
It doesn't do us a lot of good now, right? Exactly. You're no John McCain, my friend.
You're just no John McCain. And I just—trying to be like that right now.
I don't know what he's going for, but I would like his tour to be over. And I'd like him to go back to Kentucky and just get the fuck out of here.
Just leave. It's all your fault, Mr.
McConnell. Anyway, that is my fail.
I have a quick question for you. Sure.
Is Edward Snowden a traitor? complex topic I did an interview with him many years ago

and I think what he uncovered was astonishingly disturbing about the government spying on citizens. So in that way, a good thing.
In a bad thing, the way he did it, I think there's all kinds of hair all over him in ways that are disturbing. I have talked to many national security people who find him to be a traitor, and they have very persuasive arguments.
I have a hard time deciding about that. I do, even after doing the interview.
And I hate to say that because I think that in many ways he is, and in many ways he isn't. I don't know what to say.
That's where I am. I don't know what else to say.
I think it's a complex topic, let's just say, and they did make reforms after he did it, but at the same time, the way he did it was traitorous, too. Why did you ask that? Because, well, I thought that was the most interesting moment, but you now as well no longer, in my opinion, are qualified to run our national intelligence service.
I think that's a layup of a question. All right.
OK. I'm not suggesting what was found out might not ultimately be good for America, but he's full stop, 100 percent a traitor.
All right. I've heard I it's I'm usually with the national security people on this thing.
And I think he did hurt our national security apparatus. You lost my vote.
I'll vote for you. Secretary of Defense, I'm in for you.
I just have a smidge of I don't love the government, what they did. So anyway, we want to hear from you.
Send us your questions about business tech or whatever is on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT.
Elsewhere in the Karen Scott universe, I talked to Ben Stiller about severance

on On. Let's listen to a clip.
There's so many different ideas of what severance could be a

metaphor for. And I think we all do sever to a certain extent when we check out if you have a

drink or you take a gummy or you watch a TV show or if you go on your phone. I mean, we all

Thank you. certain extent when we, you know, check out if you have a drink or, you know, you take a gummy or you, you know, watch a TV show or if you go on your phone.

I mean, we all find ways to cope with the everyday sort of, you know, torrent of stuff that's coming at us in life.

Right.

It's also, I go to hardware stores and browse.

What do you do to sever, Scott?

We already know gummies, breath work, what? I hang out with my dogs. Sometimes I take a gummy.
I like to write. The evening is my alone kind of peace time.
And I also occasionally, if I have both a gummy and a couple makers in ginger, I put in my AirPods and I danced 80s music without my shirt on. I danced in the mirror like a 15, what I imagine like a gay 15-year-old teenager would do.
Is that wrong? I so want to see that. I so want to see that.
Can you put a camera in your house so I can watch that and then I was ever watching that? That would make me happy. It would literally, it would probably decrease the amount of sex people have that night by like, everyone would just be so freaked out and so unattracted to everybody.
I would like to sever doing that. I would like you to do that for me.
I want that as a gift. I want a video where I can watch it over.
DJs and Tom Petty, a little bit of edible CBD and sativa with the makers and ginger. Daddy's got the moves.
Hello, ladies. Do you believe in love at first sight or should I walk by again? I don't know what else to say.
Anyway, that's the show. We'll be back on Friday for more.
Scott, read us out. Dance us out.
Today's show was produced by Lara Neyman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Interest had engineered this episode.
Thanks also to Drew Burrows,

Ms. Saverio, and Dan Shallon.

Nishat Kuroa 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 later this week

for another breakdown

of all things tech and business.