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

Support for Pivot comes from Atteo. Atteo is an AI native CRM built for the next era of companies. It's powerful data structure adapts your business model, sinks in all your contacts and minutes, and enriches everything with actionable data. Atteo's AI research agents tackle complex work like finding key decision makers and triaging incoming leads. You can also create email sequences, real-time reports, and powerful automations, all to help you build what matters, your company. You can join industry leaders, including flat file, Medicaid, Modal, and more. You can go to attio. Com/pivot, and you'll get 15% off your first year. That's attio. Com/pivot.

Support for this show comes from ServiceNow, which is enabling people to do more meaningful creative work, the work they actually want to do. You know what people don't want to do? Boring busy work. But now with AI agents built into the ServiceNow platform, you can automate millions of repetitive tasks in every corner of the business, IT, HR, customer service, and more. That means your people can focus on the work that they want to do. That's putting AI agents to work for people. It's your turn. Get started at servicenow. Com/ai-agents.

Meet Klaviyo, the only CRM built for B2C. Join 167,000 companies like Paul Smith, Castor, Mixtiles, who choose Klaviyo for better customer relationships and faster growth. Grow with klaviyo B2C CRM at klavyo. Com/uk.

Keep going for big balls.

Tesla. Sexy, LLC, and big balls, two things I am very sorry that I have to keep saying on TV interviews and podcasts.

Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York magazine in the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swischer. Scott is off today. Who knows where he is, but in his place, we have someone so much better, Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired. Wired has always been a powerhouse, but particularly in the era of Trump, Elon and Doge, which I'm calling Doggy now, and his coverage has become required reading. Katie, welcome. You've had a busy couple of weeks with all these scoops on Doggy, which led to a record-breaking increase in subscriptions. We'll get to that in a second, but welcome. Thank you for coming.

Thank you so much for having me. I am also in a mysterious location, but I'm not going to tell you where I am either.

Okay, all right. Well, you're here, at least, as opposed to whatever the hell Scott's doing, taking edibles and not skiing wherever he is. I want to talk a little bit because you guys have really come on strong here now. Tell me about your approach to covering this administration. Now, you became Gilbert Editorial Director relatively recently, right? Is that correct?

Yes. Time is a funny thing these days, but it was about a year and a half ago. It was September 2023. I got the job. I started. Actually, my second day on the job, I emailed my boss. My boss is Anna Wintour.

That must be fun.

It's actually delightful. She's amazing. I said, I need to hire a politics team, and here's why, and here's what I want to do. I'm happy to talk more about it, but it was from inception, I think, looking ahead at 2024, which was obviously a critical election year for the United States and for so many other countries around the world. At the time, in my head, it was much more about generative AI, mis-and-disinformation, hacking, and those tech adjacentcies to politics, I wasn't thinking, well, obviously Elon Musk is going to jump in and end up sleeping at the White House. That wasn't on my radar at the time. But certainly, our coverage has evolved a great deal since then.

Why did you have that instinct? Because of AI around the world, the regulatory issues, that was the focus was that everybody's going to be focused in on what AI means and the government's included.

Ai was a major catalyst at the time. I think my feeling was, Wired covers a lot. I think Wired being described as a tech outlet is incorrect and misses the forest for the trees. But you can't separate technology from politics anymore. It just felt like we had the tech industry coverage, we had the consumer tech coverage, we had the science coverage, we had all this other coverage, but we were missing this really important piece over here that made everything click together. You can't cover artificial intelligence without looking at, well, how is it being used in elections? How is it being regulated? How are politicians talking about this technology? It just felt like we needed that political expertise.

When did you get the idea that you should really look at Doge? Because I think it's really... I'm feeling like, how did they get into this USAID? Where did you get all this stuff that you were getting and the identities and information about all these people that were working for it? Because that's years of of beat reporting, essentially. I mean, I was trying to figure it out. I'm like, wow, they were up to speed rather quickly and rather accurately on what's happening. What was the strategy there?

Yeah, no. I would love to say it was years of beat reporting because I That is something that I believe in, and that is something we have implemented at Wired, is the notion of each reporter owns a beat. We believe in iterative reporting. What that means essentially for someone who doesn't work in journalism is you break off pieces of a story, you publish what you're able to confirm at any given time, and that reporting builds on itself and builds and builds and builds. You don't wait. I think it was over the summer when now President Trump was shot in the ear, you remember the photos, the raising the fist, these iconic images that I said to the staff, there is a very good chance that this person is President again. There's a very good chance that he wins, because that was such a seminal moment in this election. Shortly after was when Elon jumped in in endorsed Trump and really started running into that campaign with, I think, something like $280 million, ultimately, in contributions, and obviously a lot of contribution via his megaphone on X that he uses. It was at that moment that we knew we had to really focus on Elon Musk, and we had to really focus on Trump as probable President-elect.

At that point, we ultimately assigned someone to cover Elon Musk in government. Like Elon Musk as political operative, that is your beat, that is what you own. That was in July. We had a lot of lead time to start sourcing up because it was over the summer that we said, Everybody here, no matter what you cover, in some way, shape, or form, what you cover will be impacted by a Trump administration. You need to start working on that now. And people did. I mean, they did. We were prepared, I think, in large part of that. Then I think in large part because we have journalists on the team, including Zoe Schiffer, who joined us in January, who knows a lot about Elon Musk. I mean, she wrote a whole book about him acquiring Twitter. I think we had the political aspect of it staffed up and running. We had the tech industry coverage and the expertise on Elon. When you combine all of that together really forcefully, which I think we're very good at being very forceful, we just ran at story. We ran at that story.

That's interesting that you said forceful because I get what you're doing because we've done it. We did it previously at All Things D with Uber or Yahoo, whatever the story was. It's nothing like this story. I'll tell you, this is quite... I wouldn't even know what to do with this story. But Talk about forcefulness because it's really important to have an editor who is... You're a critical part of this, as I know, because I've been there. Not on this biggest story, but talk about the idea of forcefulness and aggression in doing that, and not in a negative way.

No, I love forcefulness and aggression. I mean, gosh, that's such an interesting question. I think that I am a forceful and relatively aggressive person, and I think that my enthusiasm for news and for scoops comes through very loudly and very clearly to the team. I think it has since I started the job and made it very clear what we were here to do, which was to interrogate power structures within the tech industry. That is what I'm interested in doing. I have been very clear about that from day one.

Another thing is people do try to stop you. They say, Why are you being so aggressive? I think people don't understand that when we were very aggressive on Uber and what was happening there with Travis Kalinick, a venture capitalist, approached me at a restaurant called Marad. They said, When are you going to stop being so hard on him? I said, When he stays down?

I just know what to say.

They were like, Well, that's rude. I'm like, What? I'm sorry. He He's a terrible CEO. He's doing terrible things, and he's not staying down. So when he stays down, that's probably when we'll stop or even beyond. It was an interesting... It's hard for people to understand. Do you feel pressure yourself? Because this is big stakes. I mean, that was just Uber, who cares, thing. I don't mean to say who cares, but you know what I mean. This is the bigs. This is really the bigs. Do you personally feel pressure or do you feel that you have to pull back anyway? I've noticed a pullback among certain people, for sure.

No, no, no. It's not even some grandiose notion that I have. I remember when we published that one of our first stories naming several of these young engineers, and it was an explosive story. We got a lot of criticism. It's not that I was surprised by any of it, but I just hadn't... The idea of softening that story had not even entered my I don't say that to to brag. I say it because we're just like, This is the job. I get paid to do this. This is my job. I take my job very seriously. I love what I do. But I have not thought for a second that we should soften anything that we're doing. I think what we owe our audience is very clear, very transparent, very direct coverage and explanations of exactly what is happening as we are able to learn it and confirm it. That's all we're doing.

That's it. Yeah, exactly. One of the things that was the attacks were so disingenuous. You're saying who they are. You were not saying little pricks or anything else. I was saying that. But you were very clearly just saying, this is who's working on this stuff. This is the federal government. It deserves transparency. Those attacks were disingenuous. I mean, Elon attacked Scott and I for being mean to them or something like that. It's part of a narrative they have trying to get on how these poor kids, how dare you attack these poor kids.

Right. I mean, the notion that there is something illegal about naming individuals working within federal agencies at the behest of Elon Musk is nonsense. I don't even understand what that means.

Yeah, exactly. And those stories were anything. So let's go into some of these stories because I think it's really people are... It's a breathtaking level of scoops, I have to say. I think a lot of people are doing a great job now. I do, too. And what's interesting is they They've stepped up since you stepped up. It actually creates an energy around the coverage itself, which I think is I've noticed just today. I saw about three stories elsewhere, and I was like, this would only be because why it's been so aggressive.

I appreciate that.

But You can feel it. You can feel it. But people were slow to the idea of what's happening here. It's been a month since Trump took office. There's a lot happening in the land of doggy, as I say. So let's dig in. One shocking thing we learned this week, Elon Musk is apparently not in charge of Dogy. The The White House said in a court find that Elon Musk is not the US doggy service administrator. I'm sorry to say it that way, but I'm going to keep doing it. He's an employee in the White House office akin to a senior advisor. Talk a little bit about this, and I'm going to go into some of your stories, too, but talk about what you thought. Is this the loopiest of loopholes? The White House can stay out of legal trouble. Several states' attorney generals argued in a suit last week that Elon is building power that can only be held by elected officials and people confirmed by the Senate, but a federal judge ruled there isn't enough evidence for irreverible harm to justify a temporary restraining order. That's a legal nicety. The judge also expressed questions about what the White House was doing.

Yes. Questions isn't quite taking it far enough, I don't think at this point, but I'm not a judge. My understanding of this, I mean, first of all, it is chaos across the board. It's like, wait, sorry. The President of the United States has been saying for months that Elon Musk is in charge of Doge, that he runs Doge. He's in charge of Doge. Elon's doing this thing. Elon's making these decisions. All of a sudden, in a court filing, we now have the White House saying, Oh, no, no, no, no, That is just, first of all, total chaos. Second of all, my understanding of that sworn statement, just to be clear, it is a sworn statement, is that essentially that allows Elon to continue doing what Elon is doing within these federal agencies and within DOGE without facing legal ramifications for overstepping in a role that, to what you just said, ought to be an elected position. He ought to have had to be elected or confirmed in some way, shape, or form. Instead, he just walked right in the front door. I think what they are trying to do is avoid any legal scenario where he needs to stop down what he is working on.

Why would publish a story this week about a law that could possibly stop some of Doggy's actions? Explain that. Explain what you're doing because you're building a case in your own way, in a journalistic way.

Yeah, I think trying to... There have been so many lawsuits at this point filed about what Doge is doing. What several of them have in common is that they rely on this Watergate era law, the Privacy Act, that essentially prevents government employees from accessing Americans data in a variety of different ways. It essentially is designed to safeguard very sensitive information about the American people from agents within the US government. Essentially, we have lawsuits saying everything that's happening here, the access that DOGE appears to have within these agencies, is a violation of this Privacy Act that was instituted several decades ago. Whether that actually succeeds in any or all of these lawsuits is an open question. I think one thing that's interesting to me, and I think troubling to me, is that that argument could succeed in one instance, let's say a lawsuit with regards to access in the Treasury Department, and it could fail in another instance. Let's say access to IRS data. You have this bandaid slap-dash approach to trying to just stop Doge from accessing as much data as possible. But how do you stop them from accessing data wholesale on a holistic level?

I don't think we have an answer to that.

Do you have a legal reporter? How How do you... Because I think the lawsuits will reveal a lot, but it's the slowest way of dealing with a very difficult situation.

It's the slowest way, and certainly it opens up questions about whether or not the administration decides to abide by the rulings of the courts. I think that's an existential question for the country. We don't have a legal reporter. We just have really smart security and politics reporters and a team of managers on top of them who are the smartest journalists I've ever worked with, and we make a lot of phone calls. We talk to a lot of experts who know this stuff inside and out and can essentially help us translate all of that information for the audience to make it as easy as possible for people to understand what What is happening and what potential safeguards exist to prevent it from happening?

You use the word chaos a lot. It's important. This is one of Elon's signature moves, chaos, to create chaos or create trouble and then make accusations. He's got six or seven moves, including attacking you for revealing the names, for example. But chaos is the point here, I think, in many ways, so that everyone has to run around and do these bandaid approaches.

Yeah, it's interesting, too, because chaos is also a signature move of President Trump. We're seeing chaos in a big picture way across the entire federal government, the entire federal apparatus, Doge being one pocket of chaos that sits within the larger chaos umbrella. It's just chaos everywhere you look. I actually think my theory is that at least some of the chaos being created by the Trump administration in a big picture way is distracting distracting people from the nitty-gritty doge chaos that's happening inside of all of these agencies in this in this simultaneous and concurrent way. I actually think a lot of the... It's like the Gulf of America, all of the craziness of- Self distraction, yeah. Yeah, the DEI stuff, as awful as it is, I think Canada is the 51st state. These are distractions while 25-year-old engineers who at SpaceX are trying to obtain administrative access to very sensitive systems that contain data about millions of Americans.

Can you give people a sense of why they want that? I have a theory, but what is their need for getting that, to get to the data?

That's a really good question. If I had an answer to that question, I would be publishing a story. I mean, if you say that they want to train AI on Americans data, I will smile and laugh and freak out, although I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I think that Elon Musk wants complete and total control of the entire federal infrastructure and apparatus. I think that that's what the driving force is here. I don't think he's in it for his contracts. I don't think he's in it to make Tesla a more successful company. I think he's in it to run the thing the way he runs every other company in his portfolio Palio. Whether or not he wants that data to train an AI, I think, is an open question, but I'm curious to hear what you think.

It does vaunt Grock ahead, which is not ahead. Grock is not ahead, but it vaunts... It puts him in a pole position because as you know, many AI researchers think we're running out of data, right? That's been the big discussion recently. Well, there you go. You're right, he does. But for what purpose does he want to run it? That's the part that's going be very difficult to report when you're thinking about it in that big term.

You have a better sense of his psychology than I do. But there certainly seems to be something very, very deeply buried inside of him that just wants to run everything. I mean, it just feels like pure ego.

Or he wants to go to Mars and he needs the government to do so. There's all kinds of theories on that. Let's talk about the relationship you mentioned between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They sat down for a joint interview with Sean Hannity, the House the House reporter there at the White House, and I mean that in a negative way. Hannity said he felt like he was interviewing two brothers. Hannity, it was the biggest wet kiss. He looked them up and down the entire time. Elon shared how much money he's trying to cut from the deficit, Let's listen.

Well, the overall goal is to try to get a trillion dollars out of the deficit.

If the deficit is not brought under control, America will go bankrupt.

This is a very important thing for people to understand.

A country is no different from an an individual in that if an individual overspends, an individual can go bankrupt, and so can a country.

God, that's the idiot's guide to how countries are run. But that's not correct. That's not correct. But well, Doge says it saved $55 billion in federal spending. So far, the actual data shows it's much less. One major error found on the DOGI website, it mislabeled the contract as $8 billion when it was actually eight million. You all have been doing a lot of reporting around this, this idea of what the cuts that are being made. And NPR just did one showing the same thing that this is not $55 million. And of course, now they're also talking about sending people dividend checks, which is trying to make people happy with them and allowing them to keep doing what they're doing. It's come rather early. The payoff has come rather early. But talk a little bit about this and what these young people are trying to do. Are there more of them moving into the space now that it's gotten momentum?

From everything we can tell, Doge is expanding. I mean, the budget for Doge, I think last week, expanded to the tune of several million dollars, which strongly suggests that they are onboarding more personnel, that they're bringing more people in. Not exactly a model of efficiency themselves if they continue at this rate. But essentially what we have been able to establish, there's a pattern to what they are doing. They gain access to an agency, they gain access to, in particular, I think systems that contain personnel files, personnel data about who is a probationary employee, for example. That someone, as the Trump administration recently changed the rules around this, someone who is, I think, they made the probationary period one year instead of two years, I think, which basically allowed them to fire more people. They're going into these agencies obtaining data about personnel and salaries. Then they are just pushing through sweeping layoffs of hundreds or thousands of federal workers across every agency that you can possibly imagine and a new one every day. I think that has become the repeat Mad Libs version of these stories is, Doge is now inside X agency doing Y layoffs.

That is the story. The reality, though, is, first of all, to You indiscriminately fire thousands of civil servants without really having an in-depth understanding of what they do, what it even means to be in a probationary period, because that also applies to someone who was recently promoted. You have people who have been 10, 20, 30-year government workers who were just lumped into this probationary worker category and fired, first of all. There's that whole hot mess express over there. But when the rubber hits the road, like when When you look at the math, when you do the numbers, firing a bunch of civil servants isn't going to get you a trillion dollars. That's not where the money is. You have these big promises, these sweeping claims about savings from, We cut this contract. We don't subscribe to Politico Pro anymore. Look at us go. Look at all the people that we're firing. That doesn't actually add up to that much money. I think the question is, Where are you planning on finding the other 92 billion dollars that you need to find to get to a trillion dollars.

When you are looking at who is doing this, it's indiscriminate because they're also inexperienced. The vetting of these people who are doing this is also, you're doing the vetting. Wired is doing the vetting. A lot of them have what I'm not surprised by, but typical obnoxious tech bro behaviors in terms of being on certain sites, doing certain things.

Yeah, Wired is doing the vetting to the credit of so many other journalists, too. Other news organizations, Wall Street Journal, very notably, Bloomberg, have been breaking some really important stories about some of these individuals as well. I think one thing that's important to note is how this recruiting appears to have happened in the first place. We published a story, I think 10 days ago, about essentially former interns at companies like SpaceX or Palantir going to online forums for alumni of of those internship programs or of those companies and basically doing a spray and pray Hey, guys, does anyone want to save the federal government? Dm me, and we'll get you onboarded with Doge. That appears to have been the very elite, handpicked recruiting process was actually just posting in message boards. From there, it's relatively unclear what vetting actually happened or whether there was an interview process, whether there were background checks, security clearances. We published a story about one of these guys who goes by Big Balls. We've all heard about Big Balls. Everyone has talked a lot about Big Balls, but we talked to several, I think three or four different experts who said it is very unlikely that this guy would ever pass a security clearance to walk into a federal agency.

It would not happen. This guy has been involved in not criminal enterprises, but at the very least, criminally adjacent enterprises. He's running web domains out of Russia. He is doing all sorts of really bizarre, sketchy stuff that would raise serious red flags with someone doing just a background check before allowing a new federal employees. He loves that. Yeah. I mean, it's this reckless disregard for any standards in terms of who you're bringing in.

And explain why he wants those young people to do it. I know why, because the older people wouldn't.

Older people wouldn't. I think, look, there is this, as you know very well, the cult of Elon. I think for a lot of young men in the technology space, what he is doing and everything that he does and the way he lives his life, the way he communicates online, he's an icon, he's an idol. I mean, They look up to him and they are very malleable and pliable, and they will go into these agencies and do as told because they are doing it for Elon. They are doing it for this larger cause, this notion of saving the United States. I I would imagine for a 19-year-old who runs a company called Tesla. Sexy LLC, probably thinks this is a pretty exciting adventure to be on with Elon Musk.

It is. And yet older people just wouldn't do. They do have older people, as you've noted, and others have supported, very sophisticated lawyers and everything else. Someone who's not hiding his disgust for Elon is Steve Banon, which is interesting. Banon called Elon, I think this week, a parasitic illegal immigrant, though he did complement Doge. He said Elon wants to play act as God. He does seem to be a fan, as I said, of Doge's work. He told CNN, let's listen. Elon is doing some great work.

I'm a huge supporter of the deconstruction administrative state and what Elon is doing in Doge. I'm a big supporter of that. I hope, and my prayer is, is that these cuts are real.

So Banon later called out Elon, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos as oligarchs who don't support the MAGA movement. What is going on here? I think he would turn and be pals with Elon in five No question with this guy.

My best guess here is that Steve Banon is outside of the inner circle and wishes he was inside of the inner circle, and has been supplanted by Elon Musk. I think it's interesting to compare that Time magazine cover with Banon from the first Trump administration to now Elon in that very iconic Time cover from a couple of weeks ago.

He's sitting in front of the Resolute desk.

Yeah, I think that Steve Banon is on the outside looking in, probably wishing that he was part of the club. That's my best guess.

That's what those compliments for. When you think about those who are pushing back, are there really true people pushing back? And what can be done, obviously, Scott makes fun of the people, the Democrats, standing in front of agencies and yelling. But there is something to protest, obviously. Is there real pushback within the government and within technology circles? They just seem to be quitting. A lot of the techies who are in there are leaving or going.

Yeah. I wish I could say that we were seeing signs of some really coherent strategic effort on the part of the Democrats, on the part of leaders within these agencies to push back on what was happening or prevent it from happening. That's not what I'm seeing. I don't think that's what our reporting indicates. I don't think that we're seeing that play out. I think what we're seeing, to your point, are politicians standing up outside of offices in DC and making fuss and making noise, which fine. I mean, even just the visibility of that, I think having those clips on social media, there's value there. Obviously, we're seeing people take to the streets and protest in, I think, relatively small numbers at this point, if I'm being totally honest. I also don't think the Trump administration gives two shits whether people are taking to the streets and protesting in relatively small numbers. Then we are seeing career civil servants, people in very senior positions within these agencies walk We're seeing them walk publicly. They're not being shy about why they're leaving. I completely understand that for someone who has been in a position like that and who can no longer, I think, with integrity, hold the office that they hold, that the only choice they feel they have is to leave.

On the flip side, though, what that means is it just became that much easier for Elon Musk and President Trump and all of these leaders within these federal agencies to to put someone else in these big jobs who will be malleable, who will be client, and who will execute according to Musk and Trump's demands. That's essentially what that means. They just opened up the headcount, and that's a good thing.

Among the biggest people is the cyber people. They're terribly worried. That's the ones who are sounding the alarms in terms of the porousness of what's happening here. All right, we're going to quick break. We come back more about Doge Central and Wired's amazing reporting. Support for Pivot comes from DeleteMe. You might be surprised how much of your data is on the web. You might be even more surprised to know that data brokers collecting that personal information make a profit off it. They treat it like a commodity where anyone can buy your private details, which can lead to identity theft, phishing attempts, harassment, and unwanted spam calls. But now you can protect your privacy with DeleteMe. Deleteme sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it, and what they removed. It isn't just a one-time service. Deleteme is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet. I've actually been using DeleteMe for a while now, and I have to say it's a really astonishing thing how much of my personal information is there and collated the way it is together and how much of it is wrong, and at the same time, how much of it is right.

To put it simply, Delete Me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount to our listeners. Today, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go join deleteme. Com/pivot and use the promo code pivot at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go join deleteme. Com/pivot and enter the code pivot at checkout. That's join deleteme. Com/pivotcodepivot.

Support for Pivot comes from Vanta. Trust isn't just learned, it's demanded. Whether you're a startup founder navigating your first audit or a seasoned security professional scaling your GRC program, proving your commitment to security has never been more critical or more complex. That's where Vanta comes in. Businesses use Vanta to establish trust by automating compliance needs across over 35 frameworks, including SOC 2 and ISO 27001. Centralized security workflows, complete questionnaires up to five times faster, and proactively manage vendor risk. Vanta not only saves you time, it can also save you money. The new IDC white paper found that Vanta customers achieve $535,000 per year in benefits, and the platform pays for itself in just three months. You can join over 9,000 global companies, including Atlassian, Cora, and Factorial, to refuse Vanta to manage risk and improve security in real-time. For a limited time, our audience gets $1,000 off Vanta at vanta. Com/pivot. That's V-A-N-T-A. Com/pivot for $1,000 off.

Meet Klaviyo, the only CRM built for B2C. If you're running a business, it's about revenue, right? Keeping a store, steakhouse, or even a stadium filled with happy repeat customers can be hard. But with Klaviyo B2C CRM, you can bring your customer data, marketing, service, and analytics together to build lasting customer relationships that keep them coming back. Visit klaviyo. Com/uk to join more than 167,000 brands using from Klaviyo to grow.

Katie, we're back. There's obviously been a lot of questions. You mentioned about conflicts of interest since Elon came to Washington. I agree. I don't think his big thing is to make money, although he doesn't mind doing it. And he's supportive. He's using threats to push X. He's using threats to this and that. He's doing the typical shakedown thing that can happen. Wired has done some new reporting on SpaceX engineers in the FAA. They're also putting his people within the FAA. Also, apparently, President Trump is trying to get him to figure out why he doesn't have his jet. He's putting him on that, too. Talk about that. I'll note, SpaceX launches are regulated by the FAA, and the agency has alleged that SpaceX violated safety rules in the past many times. Talk a little bit of this story today.

Yeah. As someone who travels by airplane frequently and takes a lot of Xanax to do it, I have to say this line of reporting has been particularly stressful for me as a human being. We've identified several SpaceX engineers who were onboarded into the FAA this week, even as the Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, I think on Monday said, We've got some engineers from SpaceX. They're taking a tour of some facilities, like nothing to see here. Meanwhile, they were actually being onboarded as employees of the FAA. These are engineers, I think it's important to be very clear that these are people with legitimate qualifications. I'm not talking about 19-year-olds who have-Decided to put up a rocket.

Yeah.

Right. These are people who work at SpaceX. They make rockets go into the sky and then come down. But there are obviously several concerns or issues with regards to the FAA right now. One is that Doge just fired, I think, several hundred FAA workers in a moment where it's very clear that the FAA has been understaffed and spread way too thin for far too long. There have been alarm bells sounded about that for a very long time. The notion that we would be reducing staff within that agency is stressful to begin with. There's also just the reality, as you just pointed out that the FAA oversees SpaceX and has fined SpaceX several times for safety violations. The idea that you would have engineers from a company that is regulated by the agency that they now work for, going in to try to, quote, fix that agency is one enormous and very stressful conflict of interest. I just find the idea of someone with experience relevant to SpaceX going in to fix the agency that also oversees and governs commercial aviation, that's genuinely a very scary prospect.

Yeah, and it's happening all over the government. Obviously, you guys have reporting on that. Again, who's running SpaceX and Twitter and all these others? I see Steve Davis, who's been a very active Musk Minion. What is the point here of putting them there just for eyes? I assume eyes and ears.

Yeah, I think eyes and ears and marching orders, right? I mean, they're there to carry out Elon's asks, even though he is ostensibly, apparently not in charge of Doge. I think we all know that that's a It's an interesting characterization that doesn't seem reflected in what's actually going on. I mean, look, I think they're the adults in the room. I think they're there to act as the authority within a handful of different agencies and get these young operatives where they need to be.

What's the impact on the companies? Because by the way, Tesla is not doing great, by the way. They're not... But what is happening at the companies when they pull these people out?

I mean, as of now, I think it's fair to say Tesla is not doing great. But we also have situations like X being shopped around at a valuation that matches what Elon paid for it a few years ago. I think it's hard to say what's happening at the companies, especially because so many of these people appear to be pulling double duty. I think we had an example a week ago I believe it was a DOGE operative within the technology transformation services who had kept his job at an external company while fulfilling this role for musket federal agencies. It would not be surprising if a lot of these people pull the Elon on playbook and work several jobs at the same time.

He could put them in every agency, his own employees, correct, that are beholden to him and nobody else?

He could, and that's what has been going on. We've also seen DOGE operatives I call them operatives because that feels like the most accurate way to describe them. They have multiple email addresses. You have people working within two, three, four agencies at any given time, multiple email addresses, apparently acting out the asks of Musk and Doge leadership across the federal government at once, which is a terrifying proposition, obviously.

Who is coordinating all that? Elon is not doing this alone. Who do you think is the most critical person helping him coordinate this?

I think in particular at the Office of Personnel Management, which is, I think, shorthand for that would be like it's like HR for the federal government. There's a woman named Amanda Scales who has worked for Musk before, most recently at XAI, and she's there as chief of staff. She's really running point. You know what a chief of staff does. They keep all the trains moving. It's like the managing editor is the way I think of it of the federal government. I think that she is a very critical linchpin in this. Then you also have the GSA, which is the General Services Administration and the leaders that he has installed across those two agencies because they oversee so many different branches of the federal government. I think that those are the critical adults in the room who are working across all of these different agencies from where they are stationed. But I think Amanda Scales is an important person to be paying attention to, just in the sense that she is really the operational leader working within that agency.

And he always has those. He has those all the time that are loyal to him. What people have to understand they're loyal to Elon Musk, not Donald Trump. These were not Trump supporters, and neither was Elon for a long time. I want to ask you about the President, because what is his role in here? Last week, he's channeled Napoleon posting, He who saves his country does not violate the law. He was trolling people with that. He also called himself King on Wednesday as he tried to kill congestion pricing in New York. He's busy. That interview was really something. It doesn't seem like he knows what Elon is doing.

That's my impression. Everything that we have heard from inside the administration and around the administration is that even people very close to President Trump don't know what Doge is doing. They don't know how often to be communicating with Doge. They don't know what that process is supposed to look like. It really feels like Doge is always two or three steps ahead, and the actual White House, the actual administration is behind. They are catching up with what Doge is doing. Honestly, it seems like as the press is, as journalists are publishing stories, it feels like the administration is finding out what Elon has been up to, despite any assurances or anything that the president is saying publicly, because he has been very publicly supportive of Musk and Doge. It really doesn't seem like he has any idea what's going on, and frankly, it doesn't really seem like he cares.

Why do you think he's allowing this to happen?

Wow, that's a great question. I think that he likes the story that he's able to tell. He's telling US citizens, people who voted for him, that he's cutting cost. He's telling them that he is very close to tech and to tech leadership and to the visionary Elon Musk. I think he likes the story. I think he the chaos. I think he loves the fact that Doge is in the headlines 24/7. I think it keeps his administration top of mind for people because it's inescapable.

Yeah, it's a great narrative.

It's a great story. I think he likes the story. I don't think he actually cares what's happening in the details. I don't think he's getting into the fine print on this.

Nothing at all. All right, Katie, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about X's new valuation.

Support for Pivot comes from Intuit Quickbooks. Are you a business owner looking to grow? You already did what most dream of doing, starting your own business. Now you're faced with the reality of making that small business run smoothly. Intuit Quickbooks can help. Quickbooks is a powerful AI-driven all-in-one business platform. That means those day-to-day tasks, things like invoicing expenses and taxes, can be done effortlessly. But here's where it gets really good. You don't need to hire a team of analysts to find growth opportunities hiding in your business data. Quickbooks can help with cash flow optimization and profit and loss analysis. It helps see how your business is doing and uncover new ways to be more profitable. It's time to unlock the growth in your business so you can get back to enjoying it. Manage and grow your business all in one place. Intuit Quickbooks, your way to money. Money Movement services are provided by Intuit Payments Inc. Licenses and money transmitter by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Support for Pivot comes from Kinsta. Running your small business in real life is one thing, but trying to manage your business's website you track engage customers is an entirely different thing. And that's not just about making great content, it's making sure your web presence is secure, functional, and engaging. Thankfully, Kinsta can help you manage your site so you can focus on the millions of other things going on in your business. Their expert team handles it all. They've bundled up all the essentials to make sites stress-free with speeds that allow visitors, security that never sleeps, and a dashboard that's incredibly intuitive. When you hit a snag, you'll be able to talk to real humans 24/7, 365. In short, Kinsta is perfect for those who want professional results without needing a technical background. If you're tired of being your own website support team, you can switch your hosting to Kinsta and get your first month free. Don't worry about the move. They'll handle the whole transition for you. No tech expertise required. Just visit kinsta. Com/pivot to get started. That's K-I-N-S-T-A. Com/pivot.

We're taking Vox Media podcast on the road and heading back to Austin for South by Southwest Festival, March eighth through the 10th. What a thrill. Chicken fajitas, queso, strawberry margarita, extra shot of tequila. There you'll be able to see special live episodes of hit shows, including our show, Pivot. Where should we begin with Esther Porel. A touch more with Sue Bird and Megan Rapino. Not just football with Cam Hayward. And more, presented by Smart Sheet. The Vox Media podcast stage at South by Southwest is open to all South by Southwest badge holders. We hope to see you at the Austin Convention Center soon. I'm not joking. I love South by Southwest. The people are a ton of fun. It's a great time. If you do come, come up and say hi. Visit voxmedia. Com/sxsw to learn more. That's voxmedia. Com/sxsw.

Katie, we're back. Let's get to a couple more headlines. Elon Musk's Ex is in talks to raise money from investors at a valuation of $44 billion. If that number sounds familiar, it's because it's the same price Musk bought the platform back in 2022. In December, Fidelity Investments marked down its stake in the company by 70%. This follows a trend of Musk company valuation soaring since he's taken a significant role in the Trump administration, even if the companies are suffering, such as Tesla. The numbers are down and the price was up. X is not in the same place it was for Elon. It's smaller. Today, the Wall Street Journal published a very good story about X people pressuring advertisers get back on, or else maybe they'll face an investigation or they'd be added to a lawsuit that they're doing. They're using a lot of legal means to try to force advertisers onto it, what is clearly a less good platform. Talk about this, although, again, it's not for him to make money, is not maybe his guiding role, he certainly is doing it. Here's a perfect example of it.

Here's a perfect example. I mean, this is a platform that to say that it has seen better days would be a massive understatement. I mean, it is, for all intents and purposes, a right-wing echo chamber. It's a mess. It's a terrible user experience. None of the ideas that they have advanced around X sound any good at all. You could pay people on X. They're going to introduce audio and video. They're going to integrate it with Grok AI. Sounds like a complete train wreck. I mean, none of these are particularly promising ideas for the platform or the business. However, Elon Musk is very close to the President. I mean, he has that adolescence that for investors investors, I would imagine, is very appealing. For investors and advertisers, the the the the implicit or direct threats that are, reportedly being made. It's not just that it's exciting or enticing to think that they might be able to get closer to the administration and curry favor with Musk and Trump, it's that in some instances, at least with advertisers, it seems like they're not really being given much of a choice.

Right. They are going to either pay or not, but you're They're going to be in trouble in some way. Let me read you some of someone. I asked them about this today. I think this dynamics playing out that every advertiser who knows what they're doing, no media buyer, indeed no marketer, once their CEO gets a call from Elon Musk berating them for not advertising on X, It sounds judgment to avoid by throwing some money to the company. Everything about this I loathe. It creates a bad precedent. It puts money in Elon's pocket. It undermines the advertising business. I think it's just prudent business. I am heard stories that the team is making vealed threats, perhaps not so vealed threats, and I think it will ultimately bite them someday. But this is a classic story of corruption. It's just a thing like that. You cannot build businesses on threats. You can, but you can actually.

I think what is disturbing to imagine is what's playing out with X right now in terms of the conflict of interest, the corruption, advertisers bending a knee, investors bending a knee, everybody getting in line to go along with what's happening here, to be clear, what's happening here is not okay by any measure. If you extrapolate that and think about it across many, many companies, across the entire country, across the United States of America, this is what is happening to our country. X is a microcosm of that. But you have a lot of really wealthy, really powerful people, institutions, corporations bending a knee and saying, Oh, all Like, okay, sure. I guess we don't have a choice. So hands up, we're going to go along with it.

They are saying, I've heard them say it to me, we don't have a choice. We can't do it right now. We can't do anything about it. Is there anyone else trying to take it back? Obviously, all the tech leaders showed up at inauguration in that seamless display of fealty.

I mean, I think that all of the pictures I saw of Tim Cook from inauguration, he looked physically ill and somewhat more fire. But he was there. But he was there. Let history show, let the photos remind everyone in four years when, knock on wood, we have another election and the tables turn, knock on wood, he was there. They were all there. Sam Altman was there. Sam Altman, obviously an incredibly opportunistic tech executive, was there and then subsequently polished the president's shoes while telling him how amazing his leadership was going to be for AI in this country and the world. Mark Zuckerberg, obviously, is the most, I think, brazen and craven example of this. I'm speechless at that one because I think it's nauseating. It's nauseating Again, I think really importantly, with all of these tech executives, what's very important for the media and for press and for everybody to remember as the years go by and there's more and more chaos and we're doing more and more, when the dust settles, don't forget that they were all there. Don't forget what Mark Zuckerberg did to his company to appease the President of the United States.

The influence that Metta's platforms have on millions, if not billions of people, don't forget what he did to appease the administration. I think that that's really important because so much is happening every day. It's been a month. It's been a month.

Is there any resistance in tech at all, besides Reid Hoffman and maybe Mark Cuban?

None that I have been able to discern. I've talked to a lot of tech leaders and tech CEOs, even just off the record, or talking to their comms people. The message to to me has been very clear, when we go on the record, don't ask us about politics. They don't want to talk about it. They're not talking about it. I think it feels so markedly different to 2016 when a lot of them were talking about it. I think Airbnb, I remember, was a really notable example then of a company that came out swinging with regards to the Trump administration, with regards to the President's comments on immigrants, people from garbage countries, whatever he did, shithole countries. It's radio silence, which I think is really telling, really disturbing, and will unleash any number of crises over the next four years. I really believe that.

Last question, the Democrats, I don't think were as close to tech as people thought it was. I Obama was in that regard with Eric Schmidt and others. Do you think it's a wholesale change? I think it's an opportunistic change. The joke I make is that if Kamala Harris won, Mark Zuckerberg would be asking us to calling him They/ Them. I don't think it's anything other than that because I don't think they're committed in any way. I think C. Banon is right. They're not MAGA friends. They just are opportunistic. In that regard, is there an opportunity for Democrats in that way besides giving these toddlers what they want?

You mean to get closer to the tech industry?

To get closer, back to closest. Or do you think it's an overall shift that's permanent?

I don't think it's an overall shift. I think you're right that this is like company before country. This is opportunistic. What's best for Metta in this specific moment in the context of the numbers? It's about the bottom line. It's not even about the staff and whether or not they're having a good time. It is absolutely opportunistic. But I think for the Democrats to be able to create an opportunity here would require them to first get their shit together and figure out what their strategy actually is over the next four years. It's a really hard question to answer when beyond some sternly worded statements and speeches and a couple of people hanging out in DC outside of these federal agencies being noisy, I don't really see a coherent strategy taking shape at all. I would be very interested to see what they think they could do to collaborate more closely with the tech industry to create a productive working relationship with some of these leaders so that hopefully in three and a half years, we're in a very different position ahead of the next US election. But it's very hard to see that happening right now because I don't see much happening at all.

Yeah, I would agree with you. I would agree. Okay, Katie, it's time for this week's Threads Poll result. Last week, we asked you all what you wish Democrats were doing in response to Trump administration. That's why I was asking about that. Here are a few responses. Kerry said, Replace Schumer's entire com stash with Pete Buttagej. From Marina, Primary, retire all those old white men support young, ferocious, fearless candidates. And nick said, Talk like human beings. Stop fundraising text. Demonstrate understanding of urgency. We know the house is on fire. We want to see firefighters, nurses, cops. Good answers. Yeah, those are great. What you were saying. I think this is right. It's the elderliness of it, the tone, the lack of social media. I think the Republicans are excellent on social media comparatively, and the Democrats certainly certainly aren't as much. Some are, certainly are. Do you see anybody being very promising? I mean, Pritzker suddenly has developed a backbone and is using social media a lot. Obviously, AOC uses it. Is there anybody, and how important is that going forward?

I've always been a big Pete Buttigieg fan. I think he knows how to create a viral moment. He's very well-spoken. He's very forceful. I think that he continues to be a really promising voice in that party. Obviously, I think that AOC is tremendous. I think she is articulate, she is forceful, she is accessible. I think what she does on vertical video on social platforms in terms of communicating with her audience is phenomenal. I wish that we saw more politicians do that, I want to call it grassroots outreach. It's grassroots digital outreach. It's meeting your constituents where they are on the platforms where they spend time, talking to them in a way that feels authentic, helping them navigate what is happening right now and really genuinely acting as a voice for the people and someone for the people to look to as a leader. I think the Democrats need more to the point of one of the commenters really high energy, high velocity, forceful political leaders instead of candidly the geriatrics who are just sitting on their hands right now.

Waving. Scott says, Waving their canes at people. There you go. I would agree. I actually see Chris Murphy doing some interesting things. There's a bunch of them, but it has to be coordinated in a way that... And you still have the power of the Rogans, although he's slipping a little bit. You're starting to see slippage with him. I think the audience is up for grabs, that's for sure, if they want to have the right questions. All right, now for this week's questions for our audience, do you think China will agree to the sale of TikTok under the Trump administration? Katie, I want your response very quickly on this one. No. And so what happens?

What happens? I mean, first of all, I think everything happening right now is very dubious in its legality, and I'm not quite sure how TikTok is still in the app stores that the Supreme Court said it shouldn't be in. I think that Trump brokers some deal to keep TikTok in the United States. I think it's very clear that he has no intention of letting this thing shut down. So I think he brokers some deal. What's in it for Beijing, though, is the big question mark I have, because they have no interest in allowing that platform to operate in this country without their oversight and without their control of that algorithm. How he actually solves for that, I do not know. We at Wired, I will say we do not know.

Do you see any person besides Larry Ellison rising to the front? I said Musk, obviously, because he's acceptable to China.

I think Elon Musk. I think Larry Ellison. I do not think as much as I really like Frank McCourt, and I think that he is a very articulate and intelligent person, I don't see that taking shape in any meaningful way.

Yeah, I think it's probably going to be the Elon thing once again. He's going to fix everything. It's good for Twitter. It would be good for Twitter because that's an actually good product as opposed to Twitter. Visit us on threads at pivotpodcastoficially. Com. To answer. We'll hear the answers that we get from listeners. If you've got a question of your own or you'd like answered, send it our way. Go to nymag. Com/pivot. To submit a question for the show, we're called 855-515-pivot. All right, Katie, one more quick break. We'll be back for your prediction.

On Today Explained, way back in the mists of time, 1998, a new beauty store hit the scene. Its appeal was choice. It would put hundreds of these carefully curated beauty brands in a single store. And as a customer, you were free to roam the aisles and test all the products that you wanted to your heart's content. And that was just a very unusual idea at the time. You no longer had to be Teen Clinique or a Lancôme lady. Maybe for you, it wasn't solely Maybelline, and that was fine. In Sephora, you were free. Consumers loved this new way of shopping. Sephora became a kingmaker. It is still a very big deal to get your little brand into a Sephora Bay. But now comes a reckoning. Does Sephora have too much power? Get in, loser. We're going shopping. Listen every weekday, wherever you get your podcasts.

Hi, this is Kara Swischer, host of On with Kara Swischer. Over the past few weeks, I've been covering President Trump and Elon Musk as they continue to attack the federal government and dismantle our democracy. At least that's my opinion. I hosted a panel on Elon's takeover with Anne Applebaum, Owen Higgins, and Ryan Mac. I had a conversation on the constitutional crisis we may or may not be in with Prit Barrara, George Conway, Jamie Gangel, and Jonathan Cantor. And I took a look at Trump economics with economists Oren Kass, Paul Krugman, and Mariana Mazzucato. But life is too short to only talk politics, and honestly, politics may make our lives shorter these days. It's important to find moments of levity, too. I've also interviewed brilliant actors like Leverne Cox, Ben Stiller, and Cynthia Arrivo. We've talked about their work and what it's like to make art in these new times. To listen to any and all of these conversations, search for On with Kara Swisher wherever you get your podcast, and be sure to follow On with Kara here for more.

I'm Josh Muccio, host of The Pitch, where startup founders raise millions and listeners can invest. For Lucky Season 13, we looked at 2,000 companies and selected 12 of the three best founders to pitch in Miami.

They flew in from all over the country and the world.

My name is Michele, and I'm from Italy.

I'm originally from Medellín, Colombia. I was born and raised in Mayesville, Kentucky. I'm from Baltimore, Maryland, and I am from Finland.

This season, we're diving even deeper into the human side of venture as these founders pitch the sharpest early stage VCs in the game.

I normally don't like Ed Tech, but I really like you.

I echo those sentiments. I do want to push back, though. Puffing up there, lady.

That's health care.

I feel like I'm the lone dissenter.

Oh, Charles. Spicey. So I'm out. I'm sure when they air this episode, they'll be like, Charles was really dumb.

For those who can't see, my jaw is currently on the floor.

Season 13 of The Pitch starts March fifth.

Episodes are available to watch on YouTube or listen on your podcast player of choice.

So subscribe to The Pitch right now.

Okay, Katie, let's hear a prediction. You are Scott Galloway today.

Okay, I'm going to offer a completely insane- Please. Improbable prediction. But I feel like I have talked so much about so many things that are very stressful and real bummers for everybody, and I'm sorry about that. Here's my prediction. One thing that we know about Elon Musk is that he latches on to an idea or an ideology, and he sticks with it, and he goes really, really hard at it, and then he changes his mind. It has happened before. My prediction, and you'll have me back on in six months or a year and make fun of me for how wrong I was, something will happen, whether it has to do with his companies, whether it has to do with a divide in mega world within in the Trump orbit, something will happen, and he will pivot back to a more progressive, more left-leaning, dem-centric ideology, and he will do away with this hard line extremist, far-right approach. I am giving you a very optimistic, a very optimistic prediction.

It's just your wish, your wish that he will do this?

I think there is a 1% chance that it will happen, and so I'm using it as my prediction.

He used to support, but I just was looking at text he sent me about the climate change thing. He was all over. Exactly. He was so upset in the text like that what Trump was doing. Same thing, broadly enough, with gay and lesbian stuff.

I think it's important for people to remember that he was not always this way. It was not always like this.

Well, he was a little bit this way.

He was a little bit this way. But he was not out there avidly cheering on Donald Trump in 2016. So I am saying there is a 1% chance that he moves in the other direction.

Well, we'll see. I don't know what could and getting off the evening activities. I don't know what could happen. I don't know.

You never know.

I don't know. His daughter is nice to him, who can't stand him. Exactly.

You never know. If Elon Musk and Donald Trump in the last six months have shown us anything, it's that you never know.

I did not know what I- He is consistent. Donald Trump is consistent. He has not changed one bit, except he's got a rich friend that he uses as a cuddle on everybody else. But we'll see. That's a really good one, Katie. I like it. Thank you. I like it. Excellent. I like it. We'll see. I will have you back in six months if that happens. All right. I just want to say absolutely stellar coverage. You guys are not just a scoop machine, but the context, and you're sticking to it. Let me ask you a personal question. Are you worried in any way for yourself with all these threats? People ask me that a lot because when he recently threatened Scott and I, and I was like, Oh, did he? Okay. But it's not something that's not in my mind, legal action or press Sure, from people. I'm seeing it happen. I was supposed to appear with someone, they pulled out, they're like, Oh, you're too hot. I was like, I don't think you mean that in a nice way, thing. Do you feel pressure not to keep doing what you're doing?

I don't feel pressure to stop doing what we're doing. I think what I feel is concern for the legal and digital and physical safety of my staff. I I'm a mom. I have a family, and I bring my mom energy to work, and I care about them. I worry about them. I worry about myself and my family to a degree. Of course, I worry about it. But the thing is, there's nothing inaccurate about the journalism. There is no... Everything, as I have said before, and this is such a cliché thing for an editor-in-chief to say, but we stand by the reporting. It is rock solid. There is There is not a strand that you could pull on that would unravel in some detrimental way. I have to just stick with that and keep going. I think that's for the entire newsroom.

Yeah, I used to tell that to our reporters, you just have to get it right. It has to be right. Yeah, it has to be right. You cannot make a mistake with these people because the minute you make even just the slightest one, you have an Achilles heel showing them they will come for you, and that's what they'll do. But still, there are issues. I think you're right to be concerned about digital issues about hacking, about legal attacks and stuff like that. That's why it's all the more courageous for what you and others are doing in terms of... And keep going. Keep going for big balls. The fact that you couldn't... I'm sorry, it was so good. We shouldn't laugh at this, but come on.

How good is that? Tesla. Sexy LLLC.

I know.

Big balls. Two things I am very sorry that I have to keep saying on TV interviews and podcasts.

You like it a little bit. Oh, I love it. You I'm not doing it. Okay, that's the show. We'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot. I will read us out. Today's show is produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Anderdot engineered this episode. Nishat Kurwa is a 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/pod. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Thank you, Katie.

Thank you.

Meet Klaviyo, the only CRM built for B2C. Join 167,000 companies like Paul Smith, Castor, Mixtiles, who choose Klaviyo for better customer relationships and faster growth. Grow with klaviyo, b2C CRM at klavyo. Com/uk.