Transcript of Dissecting Elon Musk’s Hostile Takeover with Anne Applebaum, Eoin Higgins & Ryan Mac

Hi, everyone from New York magazine in the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is on with Caro Swischer, and I'm Caro Swischer. We're currently in the middle of a hostile takeover of the federal government orchestrated by Elon Musk. He's bringing his Twitter destruction playbook to the US government, and unfortunately, much of the mainstream media is covering it with a big shrug as if it's just another Tuesday. It is not, and it's really important that the media step up and really understand what's happening in each of these federal agencies, which are being run, roughshot over by Elon Musk and his team at Doge. I've gathered three of the sharpest journalists I know to begin unpacking this unprecedented government takeover, which is still unfolding, as I said. Anne Applebaum is a staff writer at The Atlantic and a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. Her latest book is Autocracy, Inc. The Dictators Who Want to Run the World. Owen Higgins is a reporter with IT Brew who covers cybersecurity, IT jobs, and government tech. He's just published a book called Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Lautest Voices on the Left. Ryan Mack is a New York Times reporter who covers corporate accountability across the global technology industry.

His book is Character Limit: How Elon Musk Distroyed Twitter. It's required reading if you want to understand what Musk is doing to the federal government right now.

So stick around. Okay, business leaders, are you here to play or are you playing to win? If you're in it to win, meet your next MVP. Netsuite by Oracle. Netsuite is your full business management system in one convenient suite. With NetSuite, you're running your accounting, your finance, your HR, your e-commerce, and more, all from your online dashboard. Upgrade your playbook and make the switch to NetSuite, the number one cloud ERP. Get the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning at netsuite.

Com/vox. Netsuite. Com/vox.

This isn't your grandpa's finance podcast. It's Vivian, too, your Rich BFF and host of the Networth & Chill podcast. This is money talk that's actually fun, actually relatable, and will actually make you money. I'm breaking down investments, side hustles, and wealth strategies. No boring spreadsheets, just real talk that will have you leveling up your financial game. With amazing guests like Glenda Baker.

There's never been any house that I've sold in the last 32 years that's not worth more today than it was the day that I sold it.

This is a money podcast that you'll actually want to listen to. Follow Networth and Chill wherever you listen to podcasts. Your bank account will thank you later.

What's up, you all? It's Kenny Beacham. On this week's episode of Small Ball, we get into maybe the wildest, craziest, most shocking week in NBA history.

The trade deadline came and it did not disappoint.

Some trades I love, some I hate it, and some made absolutely no sense at all.

The league has been shaken up, and I'm here to break it all down with you.

Man, what a time to be an NBA fan. You can watch Small Ball on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcast. Episodes drop every Friday. It is Owen.

And Owen Ryan, thanks for coming on on.

Thanks for having us.

Thank you.

Thanks, Cara.

Okay. It's obviously a lot of news happening. This weekend was crazy, so let's get to it. On Friday, after Elon Musk began to lock career staff out of the Office of Personal Management, out of the system, I posted This is a hostile takeover of the federal government by a private citizen of unlimited means with no restrictions and no transparency. Welcome to the deep state. I think I was underselling it. Since then, his band of young engineers and acolytes have done the same to the General Services Administration or GSA, taking control of payment systems at the Treasury Department or threatening death, the US Agency for International Development or USAID. Just the beginning, I assume. I'd love your top-line assessment so far and what's next. Ryan, then Anne, then Owen.

I'm going to talk my book up a little bit here, literally figuratively. But yeah, we've seen this playbook before. This is what he did with the Twitter takeover, and he is implementing that playbook now with the federal government. He's coming in with a low knowledge background of how these things work, but high confidence in that he can be the expert or is the expert in a lot of these things. He's the expert cutter. He's someone who prioritizes engineering above everything. He's deploying those tactics now across OPM or GSA or any three-letter agency. Yeah, that's my top one.

All right, Anne.

I would describe it as a hostile ideological takeover of the US government. He has a different view of the world. He's not an American patriot. He doesn't believe in the rule of law. He doesn't believe in the Constitution. He's attempting to impose another very different ideology on how the government works. I hate to say it with my... I won't tout my books, but my background in Soviet history, the first thing I thought of was the way that Stalin took over the Soviet Communist Party was controlling personnel, famously. Personnel management, management of the cadres. This is a famous way by which you take over and transform a political institution or party to make it do what you want and to change what it was doing before. That's what this looks like to me.

Owen?

I think that the lack of accountability here is also a large part of the problem. That's probably my main takeaway. I've spoken with a couple of people in different departments of the federal government. They're all describing a situation where there's been so many people cut, or either their job has been cut or they're cut out of the decision-making process that now we're in a situation where nobody really knows what's going on and how that is all going to play out. I think my two biggest fears here are one that they're going to be... I've heard from I know a couple of people in different agencies that there are AI recording software that's being used for just every meeting that they're having. That's one. Then two, I'm afraid not only with that, but just in general with a lot of this private personal information, whether it's individuals or sensitive information within any of these agencies, that Musk is going to do something maybe like the Twitter files and hand it over to a friendly journalist or hand over some curated amount of this information and push out some public information that should be public, sure, but then I'm more afraid that there'll be information that he will curate and put out there to attack his political enemies.

Yeah, that works so well with the Twitter files. That was a little bit of an egg on his face. Let's start with the OPM. Ryan, why don't you address this, which sent an email to all federal employees offering them the generous, possibly illegal exit package if they resigned. At all the hallmarks of Elon's, as you said, Twitter tactics right down to the subject line, which read fork in the road. I think he purposely did that to say it was me. On top of that, government tech workers have been called in the meetings and forced to explain their coding to very young Doge people with Gmail addresses who won't even identify themselves. They've done the same with GSA, staffing it with Musk loyalists like Steve Davis and his wife, Nicole Hollander, who don't seem to have any expertise in this, as you said. Ryan, you wrote the book about Elon's Twitter takeover explain the parallels.

Yeah, so we'll start with that email. Fork in the Road was an email he sent during the Twitter takeover. He offered these buyout packages to employees. Basically, you take this, you can leave with a couple months pay, no questions asked. But if you don't take this package, you are opting in to become a extremely hard core employee. You are working for me around the clock. We're going to build some great things, and we're going to transform this company. It was a very pivotal moment in the Twitter takeover, a couple of weeks after he had finalized his deal to buy the company, where he was drawing a line in the sand and saying, We're going to to incorporate the people that want to be here from the people that are just hanging on. He sent that same email to federal employees last week. The subject line is the same, although there was one key characteristic in that with Twitter, he made people opt in to staying, which caused a lot of problems. You have to directly say, You want to stay here and work with me. In this case, with federal employees, you have to opt in to resigning, essentially.

There's a lot of questions over whether that's legal, whether he has the authority to do that, whether there is even funding to provide people with these kinds of, I guess, delayed resignations. But the hallmarks are all there, and we can see the parallels.

Obviously, the government's a different creature, and their argument is that they're trying to make the government more like the private sector, essentially. That's their biggest argument or that brings Silicon Valley management style to it. But what it feels a little bit like, Anne, is Eastern European feel to it. Doge is getting access to incredibly sensitive information, including the Treasury Department's payment system. That includes information on government contractors that are competing with Elon's companies as well as sensitive data about people's finances. It caused the Department's top career official to resign. Talk about the obvious conflicts of interest here, Anne. Does it compare to some of the kleptocracies and governments you saw in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Iron curtain? What does this portend in that regard?

To be clear, there is no precedent in American history for a private businessman having this influence over the very intimate elements of the US government. Of course, rich people have always been influential before, sometimes very influential. They've shaped legislation, they've influenced presidents, and so on. But to have a private businessman who has no government position, who has not been confirmed by Congress, the people who are working for him are not government employees or it's unclear what their status is, They don't have any right to this information. They don't have security clearances. This breaks so many lines of illegality that, as I said, it looks much more like a hostile takeover by an outside power. I mean, so this is These are people trying to substitute their version of reality or their version of how the world should work on top of government officials whose jobs, whose salaries, whose programs have all been approved by elected US government officials. Right.

In this case, he's saying that they have permission from the President, and he noted that several times.

Permission from the President is completely meaningless.

Meaningless, exactly. But I'm noting that he's saying that.

Congress has control over spending. Congress allocated the money for these programs. This is illegal at a new level. You're right. In that sense, it looks much more like, as I said, the Communist Party taking over the Polish state in 1944, 1945. It's imposing a different set of rules, literally a different ideology, a belief that one person gets to decide everything, that this isn't a... That voting doesn't matter, Congress doesn't matter, the Constitution doesn't matter, and the legal system doesn't matter. Right.

So Doge is already getting dogged by reports that it was set up to skirt around government transparency laws. For example, they're apparently using signal to communicate. Owen, in your book, Owned, you wrote about the Twitter files, which was sold as an exercise in free speech and transparency. In reality, Elon controlled access to all the data, as you noticed, and doled out what might have been cherry-picked files to writers he chose. He obviously did. Talk about that process and what it says about Elon's supposed commitment to transparency, because he gave it to friendlies who then wrote what he wanted and twisted a lot of what was in there. Several times, there were meetings where management was dealing with something, and they said, Can you believe management dealt with this? Which is what the job of management was, in my opinion. But not that I particularly trust anybody in Silicon Valley, but it seemed a little cooked.

Yeah, I think that with the Twitter files, here you had Musk coming in. He took a company that was relatively relatively successful, and he instituted all of these changes, as Ryan was saying, cutting staff, slashing the workforce. There was some bad press around that, but he also wanted to get back ideologically at this idea of the liberal, both the deep censorship state that he thought existed in the federal government and the elements of Twitter that he believed were going along with this and making things to, quote, unquote, woke. So he found Matt Taibi. He was recommended Matt Taibi by David Sacks, a fellow billionaire, reached out to him, said, Hey, you can have access to some of these files. Taibi went in. From what we understand, this was heavily curated. He didn't have access to everything. It only went up until Musk took over. What I think the problem is, and I think that this is what bodes ill here for how he's going to manage the so-called Department of Governmental Efficiency and whatever he does with the federal government, is that he makes a lot of noise about being committed to free speech and being committed to all of these lofty ideologies.

But in reality, Musk really only cares about one thing, which is himself and his material profit. When it comes to something like the Twitter files, he's putting out all this information because it pushes forward- To benefit himself. To benefit himself and to push forward an ideological vision that he believes is going to then wrap around and benefit himself again. With him having access to all this information and all of this data, all of this- Who knows what he'll pick? Who knows what he'll pick?

I always say every accusation these people make is a confession most of the time. But so, Ryan, senior officials from the US Agency for National Development were placed on leave after he tried to block members of DOGE from accessing USAID's security system and personnel files. Earlier this weekend, according to the Washington Post, a group of about eight DOGE officials entered the USAID building Saturday and demanded access to every door and floor despite only a few of them having security clearance, according to Senate Democratic staff who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the incident when USAID personnel attempted to block access to some areas, DOGE officials threatened to call federal marshals, the aid said. The DOGE officials are eventually given access to, secure spaces, including the security office. Elon responded to the showdown between Doge and USAID officials in a tweet storm against USAID, included the post on Exit said USAID is a criminal organization, time for it to die. Another one accused it of funding bioweapon research Search, including COVID-19 that killed millions of people. I'm recording this on Monday, and Trump and Musk now say they're in the process of shutting down the agency.

There's zero proof for anything he's tweeting, which is just another Tuesday for Elon Musk. But explain what he does here and what's the tactic.

The tactic here is he needs to create enemies, and he is someone who views himself as a hero, a hero of his own making, and a hero with millions of followers around the world. He needs to constantly create opposition to that. When you see him tweet things like, such and such is evil or such and such is a criminal organization, which he's done- Or say someone's heart is seething with hate.

That's me. But go ahead, keep going.

Kairaswischer is evil.

No, I'm not evil. Yoel Roth is evil. So is USAID. My heart is seeding with hate.

It's hard to keep track. But he's done this with former Twitter executives when he denied their golden parachutes, when he fired them from the company for cause. This language repeats itself over and over again. It's us versus them tactic. He needs to be able to justify what he's doing and why he's doing it. The simple baseline answer to that all is everyone against Elon is evil.

Is it a tactic or does he actually believe it from your perspective, having interviewed a lot of people?

I think he believes it. I think he believes it as well. He gets lost in his own sauce. He He tweets it into existence in a way. We talk about these reality distortion fields with these supposed great men that run these tech companies. People like Steve Jobs, for example, was talked about having a reality distortion field. In some ways, this is Elon's reality distortion field. He tweets something into existence, and he believes it, and he gets millions of people around the world to believe it as well.

We'll be back in a minute. Support for On with Kara Swischer comes from Quince. Who doesn't love a little luxury every now and then? But luxury usually comes with a hefty price tag. Luckily, with Quince, you can get a huge variety of high-quality items at an affordable price. Quince offers 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters, washable silk and dresses, and 14 carat gold jewelry, all priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. Quince even sent me some items to check out. I just got a piece of luggage from Quince that I use all the time. I also just got a pair of Italian driving gloves. I don't know why I do not have an Italian car. I have a Kia. I also brought a bunch of athletic equipment, which is really comfortable, breathable, feels great. Quince also says they only work with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices. You can give yourself the luxury you deserve with Quince. Go to quince. Com/cara for 365 day returns, plus free shipping on your order. That's quince. Com/cara to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince. Com/cara. Support for this show comes from NerdWallet. Listeners, a new year is finally here, and if you're anything like me, you've got a lot on your plate.

New habits to build, travel plans to make, recipes to perfect. Good thing our sponsor, NerdWallet, is here to take one thing off your plate, finding the best financial products. Introducing NerdWallet's best of awards list, your shortcut to the best credit card, savings accounts, and more. The nerds at NerdWallet have done the work for you, researching and reviewing over 1100 financial products to bring you only the best of the best. Looking for a balanced transfer card with 0% APR? They've got a winner for that. How about a bank account with a top rate to hit your savings goals? They've got a winner for that, too. Now you can know you're getting the best financial products for your specific needs without having to do all that research by yourself. So let NerdWallet do the heavy lifting for your finances this year and head over to their 2025 Best of Awards at nerdwallet. Com. To find the best financial products today.

The Republicans have been saying lots of things. Just yesterday, their leader said he wants to own Gaza. The US will take over the Gaza strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We'll own it. On Monday, the Secretary of State said an entire federal agency was insubordinate. Usaid, in particular, they refuse to tell us anything.

We won't tell you what the money is going to, where the money is for, who has it?

Over the weekend, Vice President Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth, tweeted about the same agency that gives money to the poorest people on Earth. We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.

Could gone to great parties did that instead.

But what have the Democrats been saying?

People are aroused. I haven't seen people so aroused in a very, very long time. That's a weird way to put it, Senator.

We're going to ask what exactly is the Democrats strategy to push back on Republicans on Today Explained.

So, Anne, you spent your career reporting on Eastern Europe in the fall of communism. Talk about the significance of USAID in that region where it's seen as a lifeline for many formies, those States, because we did our own thing going in there and helping. What's the interest of malevolent foreign players like Russia and China in this situation? Because we spent enough time trying to burnish our reputation through USAID, which was started by John Kennedy, for people who don't know. Yeah.

Let me actually take a step back and say that it looks to me like what he's doing isn't just about himself and his power, although, of course, it is in additionally about that. But there is a pattern to what he attacks, and particularly what he's doing in in the last few days. He's attacked USAID, he's attacked the National Endowment for Democracy. This goes along with his support for the German far-right, for the British far-right. He's attacking organizations and institutions that talk about and promote democracy. Maybe democracy is even the wrong word here. They promote the rule of law, they promote checks and balances. They promote rights, the idea of rights, they promote the idea of justice. These are really fundamental elements of what the United States has been, at least since 1945, probably you could make the argument for the last 100 years. These are the elements of our foreign policy, of our national definition. This is who we are. If you go to Moldova, if you go to Indonesia, if you go anywhere in the world, you'll find people who've been trained by the USAID or trained by other US programs. They've been taught what is an independent judiciary, how is the legal system supposed to work?

This has been a package of ideas we've been promoting for many decades. Musk's attack on these institutions and these organizations, I would say, again, this has an ideological edge. These are the institutions that Musk and the tech billionaires and others around him need to eliminate and get rid of if they are to enjoy absolute power and if they're to help create a different political system. I don't know that they're going to succeed in creating a different political system, but if that's what they were trying to do, this is what they would do. They would attack those institutions.

Owen, you've written that tech leaders often try to deceive the public by presenting their beliefs as general libertarianism. But in fact, their political project is best described, I think, as techno-authoritarianism. Talk about what you mean by techno-authoritarianism and how that plays out following what Anne was saying.

Yeah, I think that the libertarianism comes from this design desire, I think on their part, to see themselves as the result of a meritocracy and to see the development of their businesses and the increase in their wealth as the result of their work and how well they've done in Silicon Valley and how they are driving the world economy. But that leaves out an important aspect to this, which is that their fortunes and their businesses have really been propelled by government spending, government investment, and government subsidization. At some point down the line, they decided that that was good for them, but not good for anyone else. They didn't want their money going to other people, whether it's foreign or domestic. But the net result of this has been a feeling, I think, on the part of these tech leaders that there's somewhat of an unfairness us and how they're being treated, particularly by elements of the government, particularly by Democrats.

Sure. They are the world's greatest victims, that's for sure.

Right. Yeah. But they see themselves as that. I think that then you see them throwing the spaghetti against the wall approach to further grievances for how they feel like this is the fault of government investment in Woke, or this is the fault of government investment in USAID, as Anne was saying, or any number of government spending programs that don't directly benefit the tech companies then become evil and bad and something to attack, and they become the victims of this, as you're saying. Again, still somewhat par for the course for any industry. The problem is that once you start to control the discourse through social media and through their work on subverting media, as I write about in the book, then it starts to become a problem for more of us than just the industry and the regulators. Then you get to the point, I think, where you have this techno-authoritarianism ideology that builds out of that and then starts to... It's like a perpetual emotion machine. It just adds to itself and radicalizes.

I'm going to branch out from Elon. He's not alone among tech types. He's just the most irritating and embracing Trump. Larry Ellison, Mark Andreessen, the G, Peter Thiel, are in that group. There's also a group of tech CEOs that didn't necessarily endorse Trump nor like him, but has made a show of bending the knee to Trump after he won. That includes people like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, who apparently now do like him when they didn't before. Bill Gates, though, donated $50 million to former Vice President Harris's campaigns, and he recently said of Silicon Valley, The fact that now there is a significant right of center group is a surprise to me. It's not a surprise to me because since I never thought they had any opinions on anything except themselves, which dovetails into the current Republican Party. But is Texas race of Trump surprising, Ryan, then Anne, then Owen?

I don't think so. I mean, these guys, their best interests are their business. It doesn't matter what political party is in power. They're going to do what's best for their business. That's always been the guiding light for Elon. If you look back at his relationship with Barack Obama, for example, there were very favorable policies to SpaceX X and Tesla under Obama. So he had this great relationship with the Obama White House. And you see that start to shift with Biden when he doesn't get invited to the EV summit. That was obviously bad for his business, and he turns. These guys are all similar. I don't think it's a surprise to me. And I was actually surprised by that Bill Gates quote. These guys aren't exactly hiding it by any means.

He asked me that, and I'm like, what are you talking about? They're like this all that. There's such a bunch of fucking babies. Anne?

I think I am surprised. Given that all of these people, one way or the other, have been the beneficiaries, as you've just said, of US government subsidies, in some cases of excellent American education. Their workers, the people who have money, the people who work for them are educated in the United States. They're beneficiaries of the political culture and the economic freedom that we have in the United States. Loans, loans, money, capital markets, Investment. I mean, all those things. It's not an accident that those companies were created in the US at a particular moment in a time and place. What surprises me is the revelation of their lack of patriotism. That they don't value the systems that created them, that they are turning on their own political system, that they've become entranced by... I mean, I'm not sure what we're calling it yet, techno-authoritarianism is good enough. Monarchy. Maybe that's a good system, too. I feel like we're just at the beginning of understanding this. Maybe we don't have the right words yet, but they are turning away from the political system that created them, that nurtured them, that helped them and that gave them the possibilities in order to create something else.

I really can't stress enough. I see this as... I'm not saying they will succeed, but it's pretty clear to me that they're trying to break and change the political system that we have and lead us to something else. And yes, I'm surprised by it. Okay.

Owen?

I think it depends on who you're talking about. I probably tend more toward Ryan's interpretation here that these guys are mostly just interested in their bottom line, and that's the thing that motivates them. But I do think that it's worth noting that while people in business may tilt right or left for whichever reason, and that may be somewhat fluid when it comes to someone like Zuckerberg, certainly. Elon was very happy to flip back and forth politically from the right to the left. Someone like Peter Thiel has had a far-right political project for decades. He has not made a secret of it. Trump, in many ways, may be a more vulgar expression of what Thiel believes in, but the far-right ideology that is behind Trump is not something that is, I think, alien to Teel. And Mark Andreessen, for over 10 years, has been headed in this direction pretty consistently. I do think that there- I'll tell you, 20 years, if you ever have breakfast with him. Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that if you're looking at tech people, especially like Musk and Zuckerberg, where you're going to see people who have the flexible and fluid ideology depending on who's in power, because that's who can help them immediately.

That's who can keep funneling the government dollars toward them, while someone like Now, Thieler Andreessen is more- Hardcore. Hardcore. I would also say that Bezos making the decision to not have the Washington Post endorse in the presidential election a week or two before voting, I think that's an interesting point because I think Bezos is also ideologically flexible in the same way that these guys are. But he made a very clear calculation that if he did this, he wasn't going to face any consequences from the Democrats, but that if he didn't do this and Trump did win, he might face consequences from Trump. Absolutely. When there are billions and billions of dollars in public contracts for Amazon Web Services, that's the thing that you want to make sure that all your bases- Yeah, he didn't mind going against them before, though.

I think it's a life change he's going through. Honestly, he was one of the more conservative ones. He's from Wall Street. People forget that Jeff was an adult from Wall Street when he started, so he had much more conservative personality. The first group, you're talking to Andreessen, and also Elon and Peter Thiel, to an extent, have complained about DEI wokeness. What they see is censorship. They also have, as you said, financial for backing a candidate who promises tax cuts and thinks they can get a more hands-off approach to regulation on everything from AI and crypto to antitrust. Just briefly, I'd like each of you to talk about the culture war issues versus deregulation and the different roles that play to motivating them to get behind MAGA. Anne, why don't you start? What do you think their biggest issue is? Personally, I think it's self-interest always to their core. Typically, A very problematic childhood, I don't know what else to say, or just a personality development that is broken in some fashion.

Yeah, I mean, you know these guys better than me, so I'll go with what you think.

I do call Mark Andreessen Baby Huey, and I've thought that for 20 years. But go ahead.

It's always seemed to me that there is a real issue around what we're calling woke and some of the arguments inside the Democratic Party that weren't useful or the some forms of identity politics that weren't useful. But it seemed to me that these guys were willing to use propaganda to create and blow up and enlarge that culture war for their own purposes. They looked for issues that bothered Americans or that they could exaggerate or play up in order to divide Americans in a way that was advantageous for Trump and for them, and they used it in that sense. What they actually believe, I really have no idea.

You write about this in the book, this attention to the media. They've been very interested in the media forever, and manipulating it. Mark was one of the most egregious manipulators of media over the years. Such an enormous gossip for people who don't know and He tops dimes on everybody, right and left for his own business interests. But they do understand the power of that. Let's get to the group of second tech leaders. They didn't donate to the campaign. They've been openly trying to curry favor with them ever since Tim Cook is probably the only CEO in the bunch who already had a relationship with Trump. Ryan, many of these Titans of industry personally donated to his inauguration appeared on the day as his props, I think, visited him at Mar-a-Lago, fond over him in social media. Mark Zuckerberg just settled a spurious lawsuit to 25 million to get inside the tent. What is the role here of these larger billionaires? What do you sense has shifted here?

I think I've been comparing it a lot to what happened in 2016, 2017, 17, we get that famous Trump Tower meeting where you have all those leaders making those faces in those photos sitting around the table with Trump and Peter Thiel and just looking miserable. I don't think they got anything out of that. They were the face of the resistance for a couple months, and then they fated, and they went back to business as usual. I think that tactic didn't work well for them in the past.

Well, they weren't that resistant. They were there, and they got their tax breaks, and they got their repatriated money. I happened to break that story. They were embarrassed to say they were there to me.

You also had Serge Brin at the SFO, protesting the Muslim Band. You had Sundar- Sundar Pachai. Holding a very energetic all hands at Google saying, We're not going to support these immigration policies. We stand with you, our fellow employees. You fast forward eight years later, and Sundar is standing right behind Trump, next to Bezos and Elon Musk. You have Serge a little bit further in the back, in one of the back rows next to Vivek Ramaswami. This is a guy who said, I am- You noticed he was in the back rows, though.

They were trying to be in the back rows. Sure. One of them called me the single greatest engineering feat of all time to be in the back row. I was like, Courage. You're so courageous.

Anyway, sorry. I don't know. It's as simple as couriering favor. It's as simple as if you If I show up here at this inauguration, maybe the Trump administration won't pursue me and my companies. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

All right, Anne, as you said, the CEOs are doing their job, look after shareholders. Even if being obsequius to Trump is good for business in the short term, in the long run, it's not going to be good for businesses because this is a kleptocracy that is being built. People are throwing on the word oligarch quite a lot. What happens here in these instances when people are closing lawsuits that they never would have done, vying for proximity, which was one thing, looking like props like they did at the inauguration?

You are absolutely right. Historically and in other countries that you can look at around the world, this doesn't end well. When you no longer have a political system where there's separation between business and politics, at least formally, where you create the idea that people who are close to the leader prosper and people who are not close to the leader do not, then sooner or later, you will also get a system where the leader begins to pick winners. What happened when Putin took over in Russia? He got rid of the first group of oligarchs who were there at the time, and he replaced them with his own oligarchs. What happened in Viktor Orbán's Hungary? He's gotten rid of almost every independent businessman at a high level that exists, and he's replaced them with, in some cases, literally his family and people who are close to him. The temptation for an autocratic leader to use that power to decide who prospers and who doesn't is going to be very, very strong. It is a pretty profound mistake that they are making by demonstrating this strange fealty. It's not going to be advantageous to them in the long term and not going to be advantageous to the American economy.

I mean, the Hungarian economy is now, depending on how you count, is the second or third poorest in Europe. Russia has been led down this path to destruction and disaster and more. These are not political systems that end well for business.

We'll be back in a minute.

Hey, this is Peter Kafka.

I'm the host of channels, a podcast about technology and media. Maybe you've noticed that a lot of people are investing a lot of money trying to encourage you to bet on sports right now, right from your phone.

That is a huge change, and it's happened so fast that most of us haven't spent much time thinking about what it means and if it's a good thing. But Michael Michael Lewis, that's the guy who wrote Moneyball and the Big Short and Liars Poker, has been thinking a lot about it, and he tells me that he's pretty worried.

I mean, there was never a delivery mechanism for cigarettes as efficient as the phone is for delivering the gambling apps. It's like The world has created less and less friction for the behavior when what it needs is more and more.

You can hear my chat with Michael Lewis right now on channels, wherever you get your podcasts. All right, so here's the deal. Take a former world number one. That's me, Andy Roddick. Add in the journalist who knows everything about tennis, and a producer who's still figuring out how to spell tennis, you get served with Andy Roddick, a weekly podcast where we break down the game we all love. We cover the biggest stories, talk to the sport's biggest stars, and highlight the people changing tennis in ways you might not even realize. Whether it's Grand Slam predictions, coaching changes, off-court drama, or the moves shaping the future of the sport, we've got it all. This podcast is about having fun, sharing insights, and giving fans a real look at what makes tennis so great. Catch serve with Andy Roddick on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, wherever you listen, or watch us on YouTube. Like, subscribe, follow, all that good stuff. Let's get started.

So, Owen, after January sixth, all the major platforms kicked Trump off. Apple, Google, Amazon basically killed Parler after its CEO said on my New York Times podcast, Sway, I don't feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform. That was not a good interview for him. But Parler is back under new ownership, and Trump is obviously back on all the platforms. What happens if it seems like Trump incites violence again? Can you imagine any of these CEOs doing anything about it?

No. I think we're so far beyond any normal consequences at this point for Trump, especially from the private sector, that it is hard for me to see what it would take for them to take action. I do think that if it became politically unpalatable and impossible, and they were seeing a major threat to their bottom line, they might do something to take them off the platforms for inciting violence or any... Basically, my mind just went to a bunch of even worse things that I won't put out there. But anything that he could possibly do, it's very hard to see them taking that action. Also, I think it's important to remember that when they took that action, it was after the election was certified that was going to mean that he wasn't going to be the President in two weeks. He was a two-week lame duck. I mean, this wasn't some act of great courage against someone in a lot of power. Them to do something like this now, why would they do that? The consequences could be could be quite effective. I just want to go back to something that Anne was just saying about how these picking winners and losers, every administration is going to be favorable to the people the support them and a little disfavorable to the people that don't.

That's the ebb and flow of politics. But what we're talking about here is something much more intense. I think that it's important to contextualize whether whether or not they would take some action against Trump within that context.

Yeah, I think the answer is they would not, and they weren't that brave before. You're absolutely right. So Trump, speaking of which, Ryan, obviously, there's lots of gimmies and things like that for all these people. One is ignoring a bipartisan... Trump is ignoring the bipartisan bill banning TikTok. He's working on a potentially illegal deal that could be the creation of a joint venture between bite dance and American investors like Oracle and Microsoft. To be clear, both of those were involved in the last time Trump wanted had to ban before he didn't want to ban it, and now whatever. Anyway, he was for it until he was against it. What are the downstream consequences to companies in Silicon Valley, Microsoft, Oracle, or Elon Musk owning TikTok? It's It's a grab bag of oligarchs here. And what happens if there's no deal and everybody goes to red note? Give me an example here. Use this TikTok thing as an example.

It's a madlib scenario. Anything could happen. And I think that That is just what we're going to see in these next couple of years, where could Elon Musk buy it? Sure. Who am I to say? That's just the reality of it. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg doesn't love it, that TikTok is still on the picture. But how is he going to speak up? He's already made his bed. He's donated to the inauguration. He is becoming buddy-buddy with the Trump administration. He's just going to take it. I think that is what we're going to see over the next four years, where you could get a lot of benefiting of Trump's allies. Zuckerberg is going to want to be there for when something else comes into play. Maybe it's not TikTok. I think they've just learned it. There's no benefit in becoming the resistance or a barrier to Trump. They're just going to wait in line and see.

So, Anne, what are the calculations are foreign leaders making right now with regards to what's happening? Your latest piece The Atlantic makes the point that social media exists outside the legal system. That's true in the US because the immunity granted by Section 230 in any country that doesn't have its own laws, specifically regulating social media until recently, most didn't. Talk about what they do elsewhere everywhere? Because there are other places, the EU, which are capable of reigning in platform excesses and the excesses of these tech oligarchs or billionaires. I'm not sure if I should call them oligarchs yet. Also, I'd love to know what you think. What are the calculations that other countries are making? The non-autocrats, I guess. The autocrats are thrilled. But go ahead.

Yes. No, first of all, I'm fine with the word oligarch. I think it applies really well. An oligarch is somebody who has both political and economic power, and that's clearly what certainly Musk now has. This is a really interesting question. There are a lot of other democracies on the planet, and they have their own rules about elections, about funding. They have rules about limits on funding, limits on advertising, political advertising, advertising. All of those rules can now be got around on the tech platforms. A great example of this was a recent election in Romania, where a wacky, conspiracy theorist candidate won the first round of the election after someone spent more than a million dollars advertising him on TikTok, even though he had declared that he had spent no money on the campaign. He broke the system election laws that the court wound up nullifying the election, but of course, that's a catastrophe for Romanian democracy as well. It suddenly brought to light the threat to European, but also any other democracy that wants to set its own rules about elections, about conversations, and so on. This has created that plus Musk's advocacy for the German far-right Party, the AFD, which has created a crisis in Germany because he has so much greater reach on X than any normal German media.

It's created this moment where the European Union is now looking seriously at what it can do to regulate. I mean, they're particularly interested not in tech broadly, but in the social media platform, obviously.

Right. He has Make Europe Great Again, mega, which they have turned into make Elon go away, which is funny. They did protest. The Germans did have 100,000 people, right? Correct? Huge amounts of people showing up to protest his support, his support, particularly.

Yes. It's a huge issue, especially in Germany, but not only in Germany. I think pretty every country in Europe and other democracies as well are also looking at this. Let me just say briefly, I mean, Europe can do this. They have something called the Digital Services Act. The primary thing that it could do would be to force social media platforms to create greater transparency. This is not about restricting speech or censorship or anything like any the language, the fake language that Musk and others use. This is about giving people who use the platform greater access to information, making more obvious how the algorithms work, giving outside researchers and others access to the algorithms. Obviously, the companies are resisting this really, really hard. It may even be a part of the reason why they have supported Trump. I mean, for example, why Zuckerberg supported Trump because he wants Trump-needs help in the EU. In fighting the EU. Again, it's not an accident that the groups and people, a lot of them that Musk is supporting, are people who are explicitly anti-EU and anti-Europeian. This may also be part of their propaganda campaign to break up Europe or weaken Europe so that it's unable to regulate these companies.

I think this is a really important moment. It's a make or break moment. Is it possible for other democracies to have their own rules, to have sovereign elections, and to regulate media that is essentially coming from the United States?

Or getting infected. It sounds like Canada is all united against Elon Musk, it sounds like, and the rest of them. It's interesting. People that didn't agree in Canada. We'll see if it has an effect to strengthen things like those parties in Germany, the right-wing parties, or to hurt them, which will be interesting. Owen, in your book, Owned, it is an attempt to show how two of the most popular journalists on the left basically are corrupted by platforms run by tech billionaires and how they shifted Glenn Greenwald and Matt and the others was really something to see. Do you worry that this playbook is going to work for other journalists? Say on the left, it might be ultimately corrupted by the platform. And can a journalist on the left reach an audience at the scale today using a tech platform? What is What are the outlook since they own these platforms now and run them? They have enormous power over them.

Yeah, I think that journalism is in a pretty precarious position right now in general. And I think for... I mean, in the book, I detail my journey through this. I took money from Colin, from David Sacks. I was approached by Rockfin, which is another right-wing alternative to Twitch that offer me money, but it was in cryptocurrency, so no. I think that the temptation is there. Feeling like you can do your work independently with financial backing that doesn't really ask you for much is a really appealing thing. I think that that's okay, and I think that that's good. I think that alternative media and independent media are good, and I think that's how I came up. I think that those are positives. Where it starts to make me feel a little uncomfortable is once you get into these right-wing networks that have a lot of financial backing and are willing to give you money. The way that that can manifest itself is... I talk about Glenn in the book. He leaves the intercept. He goes to sub-sack. He doesn't get paid to go to sub-sack, but he starts making a lot of money there. Then Peter Thiel and JD Vance invest in Rumbel.

And then a couple of months later, Rumbel gives a paid deal to Glenn, where he moves everything over, consolidates it over there. They pay him a lot of money, and he's now working for Rumbel, which, again, is invested in by Thiel. But it's not only that, right? It's also he's speaking at conferences, like the Network State Conference. These are allies of Thiel and and all of these right wing guys. So once you're in this world, then you have the opportunity to continue to make money. And the implicit trade-off, certainly from the outside, appears to be that then you talk about the things that they want to talk about, or maybe more importantly, you don't talk about the things that they don't want you to talk about. And I think that that is a very appealing thing to independent journalists, certainly. While at any publication, there are going to be interests that determine what you cover and what you don't. I'm not being conspiratorial here. That's just like you have to make coverage decisions Having those decisions be unduly influenced by a small cohort of extremely wealthy men who have an ideological project, an economic project, I think That is the thing.

That's the part of it that unsettles me. I think that often maybe people don't really even see what's happening as it's happening.

Oh, we see it. Ryan, you wrote a piece about how Elon and used X to woo these right-wing leaders around the world and in this country, and then push them to embrace policies that benefit them as companies. Do you think he'll be able to maintain the relationship over the next four years with Trump? If he can't, what are the consequences for Tesla, SpaceX, X, the rest of his companies?

I think that's the million-dollar question, right? I think a lot of- Billion. Billion-dollar, trillion-dollar question. A lot of folks were wondering, these are two big egos, when are they going to fall out? It's a question I ask pretty regularly, and I get the sense that they actually get along pretty well right now. Whether that'll last for four years is, again, the question. But for now, they have a mutual dependence on one another. Trump gets a A lot of value out of having Elon around.

He's his junkyard dog.

Takes a lot of heat off of him, for example. We're writing about how Musk is taking over government entities right now, justifiably, but we're not talking about Trump. We're talking about Elon. I think the only thing standing in the way of that are their egos. If one of them gets annoyed that the other is getting too much credit or vice versa, it's that That seems to be the only impediment here. But for now, they seem to be enjoying each other's companies, and they benefit each other.

Who is the stronger character here?

I don't know if I could answer that. Musk. Why is that?

Because I think they're using Trump as a vehicle. I think ultimately Elon has the power because he has the money, he has the influence, the relationships, and Trump is older, and at the end of it, they need him for so long. In that way, I think Elon's much more powerful. But I don't know. He is the President, but I don't know if that's as good a job as it used to be.

I watched a clip last week that was very interesting. It was Trump being interviewed in the White House, and it was during these reports that there were being changes being made to government websites, and if they weren't being made, they would get taken down. And He's being asked about it, and he, like you said, doesn't know. He says, Hey, that sounds like a good idea. I support that happening. But that clearly wasn't his call, or at least he wasn't read in on it. I thought that was mind-blowing. Maybe it's a tactic. I don't know. Maybe there's some 3D chess I don't know about going on here.

Yes, that's what's happening there. All right. On a scale of 1-10, each of you, how scared are you of these billionaires? I don't mean fearful or maybe fearful of the impact they're having right now. Anne, you go first.

I'm not personally fearful, but my autocracy detection radar is very, very high, and I would say I'm up to 9 or 10.

Nine or 10. The possibility of pushing them back, where is that?

We'll see what happens in the next few days and weeks. I mean, we do still have a legitimate political opposition in the United States. We have courts There are tools available, and I think there will be a pushback, but whether it can succeed given the nature of the current administration, I just don't know yet.

Brian?

4. 2 2: 0. Why? No, I'm kidding. That was a 4: 20 joke.

Oh, ha, ha.

4: 20, 6: 09. Got it. Okay. I don't like thinking about things in being in terms of fearful. I just of things in terms of accountability, and there's no accountability. He is completely unfettered. He has no opposition.

All of them, Elon in particular.

I'll keep writing about it, and we'll keep reporting on it at the New York Times, but I don't know. There's just no accountability here. That's, I think, what the biggest takeaway is for me, that there's just nothing in the way.

Owen?

Yeah, I mean, I fluctuate the tactic that they're using right now of just going full speed ahead. And this is, Trump is doing this as well. So it's hard to see how it can be stopped, but it does fluctuate because I'm pretty At my core, I'm pretty optimistic, and I just don't think that this can continue like this in this country, specifically with the national character of this country. It can take people a long time to motivate and to take action and to push back, but it does happen eventually. I guess that my hope is that it happens sooner than later because, again, how fast is the train going to go before it goes off the rails and how many things is it going to destroy on the way? That's a mixed metaphor, but I think you guys know what I'm saying there. It's disturbing. I think probably what I'm most scared of is what's going to happen before it stops.

On with Kara Swisher is produced by Christian Castro-Russell, Kateri Yokem, Jolie Myers, Megan Bernie, and Kaylyn Lynch. Nishad Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Our engineers are Rick Kwan and Fernando Aruda, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you get to be the team of white hat hackers that will undo all the mess that Elon's Minions are making. If not, you get to join his team and have a really silly nickname like Big Balls. Go wherever you listen to podcast, search for On with Kira Swischer, and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kira Swischer from New York magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more..