Elon Musk on Tesla, ‘DOGE’ and Political Spending | The Mishal Husain Show

Introduction and Musk's government role

00:00A conversation with Elon Musk is probably one of the most unpredictable and most testing experiences a journalist can have. At least that's how it proved for me. What you're about to hear was recorded in May 2025 at Bloomberg's Qatar Economic Forum. Elon Musk was, at that time still working with the Trump administration, running DOGE, the Department for Government Efficiency. It was a few months on from his big pledge to cut $2 trillion from the US federal budget. So I wanted to ask him how that was going and about his companies, Tesla and Starlink among them. And here's what actually happened when we spoke.

00:53Elon Musk, welcome to Qatar Economic Forum. How are you? Thank you for having me. I'm fine. How are you? Very well, thank you. And very pleased to have you with us. You know, among those here in the audience in Doha are some you will know people who have backed you financially over the years since you last spoke here in 2022. A lot has changed in your life. You're not only running multiple companies, you were doing that then, but now you also have a role in government. So first of all, I hope you won't mind if from time to time I have to move you from one topic to another, because we have a lot to cover in the time we have. Sure fire away. Will that be alright? Okay. Well, let's start then, with exactly the

Tesla sales and brand blowback

01:32fact that you now have this combination of being a CEO and having a role as a government advisor. Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's the split of your time? Well, I travel a lot, so I was in Silicon Valley yesterday morning. I was in L.A. yesterday evening. I'm in Austin right now. I'll be in D.C. tomorrow. I'll be there after having dinner with the president tomorrow night, I believe. And then whole bunch of cabinet secretary meetings and then back to Silicon Valley on Thursday night. But I mean, the balance of your time. It's a lot. Well, clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case, as you said a while ago, that it's about 1 to 2 days a week on your government work? Yeah, that's correct.

02:22And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered in recent months what you've called blowback. So what is your plan for turning that around, the declining sales picture? And by what stage do you think you're going to be able to turn it around? Oh, it's already turned around. Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show very significant declines in the big markets. Europe is our weakest market, we're strong everywhere else. So our sales are doing doing well at this point. We don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall and the you know, the obviously, the stock market recognizes that since we're now

03:18back over trillion in market cap. So clearly the market is aware of the situation. So it's already turned around. But sales are still down compared to this time last year. In Europe. In Europe. Okay. Yes, but that, but that's that's true of all manufacturers. There's no exceptions. Does that mean that you're not going to be able. Yes. The European market is quite weak. Okay. But you would acknowledge, wouldn't you, that what you are facing, okay, Let's just take it as Europe, What you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla was an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it, it saw it, they saw it as being at the forefront of the climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers in their cars saying, I bought

04:04this before we knew Elon was crazy. And there are also people who are buying it it because Elon's crazy or however they may view it. So, yes, we've lost some sales perhaps on the left, but we've gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this point are strong and we see no problem with demand. So what - And I mean, you can just look at the stock price, but if you want the best insider information, the stock market analysts have that. And a stock wouldn't be trading near all time highs if it was not if things weren't in good shape. They're fine. Don't worry about it. Okay. I was citing sales figures rather than share price. Well, tell me then how committed you are to Tesla. Do you see yourself and are you committed to still being the chief

Pay package and control of Tesla

04:56executive of Tesla in five years time? Yes. No doubt about that at all. Well, no, I might die. Okay. Short of that. I can't be, I can't see you if I'm dead, so there's a slight amount of - Does does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any bearing on your decision? Well, that's not really a subject for discussion in this forum, but. I think obviously there should be compensation for if something incredible is done, that compensation should match it, that something incredible was done. But I'm confident that whatever the whatever some activist posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do, it will not affect the future compensation. This is the judge who twice struck down the $56 billion

06:00pay package that was that was awarded to you. I think the value on the basis on the current value of stock options. Yeah. Not a judge, not a judge. The activist who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume. Okay. That's that's your characterization. Yes. I think on the current value of stock options - justice according to the law - on the current value of stock options, I think the value that pay package stands at about 00 billion. Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of your future pay package, your decision to be committed to Tesla for the next five years, as long as you are still with us on this planet is completely independent of pay. No.

06:47It's not independent, so pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla. A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted by activist investors is what matters to me. And I've said this publicly many times. But let's not have this whole thing be a discussion of my alleged pay, it's not a money thing. It's a reasonable control thing over the future of the company, especially if we're building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. I can't be sitting there and wondering to get tossed out by for political reasons by activists. That would be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now, let's move on. Okay. Well, just one question. Now let's move on. Well one question before we move on to other companies, which is that I wonder if

Violence against Tesla and prison threats

07:35some of what you've has happened to Tesla in the last few months. Did you take it personally? Yes. And did it make you regret any of the old think twice about your political endeavors?

07:57Because it is. I did what needed to be done. The violent antibody reaction. And I'm not someone who's ever committed violence. And yet massive violence was committed against my companies. Massive violence was threatened against me. Who are these people? Why would they do that? How wrong can they be? They're on the wrong side of history. And that's an evil thing to do to go and damage some poor innocent person's car. To threaten to kill me. What's wrong with these people? I've not harmed anyone. So, something needs to be done about them. And a number of them are going to prison and they deserve it. And more will. You're referring to the attacks on Tesla's showrooms. But I think - Yeah. Well, it's the showrooms and

08:59burning down cars is unacceptable. Yeah. Those people will go to prison and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison. Don't worry. We're coming for you. But wouldn't you, wouldn't, wouldn't you,

09:15but wouldn't you acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were were upset at your politics and very few of them would have been violent in any way? They just objected to to what they saw you say or do politically. Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay. You know, that's absurd. That is in no way justifiable at all. In any way, shape or form. And some of the legacy media nonetheless have sought to justify it, which is unconscionable. Shame on them. Let's talk about your other companies then. Another business area, Space X. I saw that you said in a speech at the West Point Military Academy recently

SpaceX, Starlink and a possible IPO

10:09that the future of warfare is AI and drones. And obviously defense is an increasingly booming sector with the state of the world at the moment. Do you see Space X moving into weaponized drones?

10:31You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer. So SpaceX is a it's the space launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones. SpaceX builds rockets, satellites and internet terminals. So SpaceX has has a a very dominant position in space launch. So of the mass launch to orbit the sphere, SpaceX will probably do 90% China will do the remain, half of the remaining amount so 5% and the rest of the world including the rest of US, will do about 5%. So SpaceX will be about ten times as much as the rest of the world combined, or 20 times as much as China, which is - and China is doing actually a very impressive job. The reason for this is that we are putting into orbit the largest satellite

11:25constellation the world has ever seen by far. So I think at this point, about maybe approaching 80% of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX, and they're providing global high bandwidth global connectivity throughout the world. In fact, this connection is on the SpaceX connection. So I think this is a very good thing because it means that we can provide low cost, high bandwidth internet to parts of the world that don't have it or it's very expensive. And I think the single biggest thing you can do to lift people out of poverty and help them is giving them an internet connection. Because once you have the Internet connection, you can learn anything for free on the Internet and you can also sell your goods and services to the

12:10global market. And once you have knowledge by the internet and the ability to engage in commerce, this is going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world. And it has. And I'd just like to thank anyone in the audience who may have been helpful and, you know, with Starlink and getting it approved in their country. And I think it's doing a lot of good in the countries that have approved it, which is, I think at this point, 130 countries are very happy with it. I don't currently anticipate SpaceX getting into the weapons business. That's certainly, that's not an aspiration. We're frequently asked to do to do weapons programs, but we have thus far declined. Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed

12:59Starlink, as a separate entity publicly listing in the near future or at all?

13:08It's possible that Starlink may go public at some point in the future. And what would be that, what would be the time frame? What kind of time frame are you considering? I'm in no rush. I'm in no rush to go public. You know public is, I guess, a way to you know potentially make more money, but at the expense of a lot of public company overhead and inevitably a whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying. So really, something needs to be done about the shareholder derivative lawsuits in the U.S. because it allows

13:49plaintiff's law firms who don't represent the shareholders to pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a public plaintiff with a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company. And the irony being that, extreme irony, that even if the class they purport to represent were to vote, that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit will still continue. So how can it be a class action representing a class if the class were against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in the U.S. It needs, it's in dire need of reform. And as anyone who's run a public company experiences, it's an absurd situation that needs to change. Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it? You've certainly got his ear.

14:30I imagine that you've put this to him. Is this something you're trying to change before any StarLink IPO? Well, it would need a law to be passed. The trouble being that you need 60 Senate votes and the Democrats will vote against it. The, the plaintiff's bar is, I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.

15:02That's the that's the issue. At the state level, this can be solved, and I should say Texas recently passed a law which at least the state level made - it's much more reasonable, because you have to get at least one in 33 shareholders to agree that they are part of a class of shareholders, 3%. This is it, this will be, will be really help with frivolous lawsuits. Okay. Let's talk about AI, which is in so many of your businesses and in all our worlds in different ways. It's one of the big changes, the development of generative AI since you last spoke to this forum three years ago. You're in this space, of course, with Grok, which almost everyone will know. You co-founded OpenAI and then left, and you've obviously got a legal battle

OpenAI lawsuit and AI regulation

15:55with OpenAI and Sam Altman. But I wonder if you could say something about the status of that because you were together in Saudi Arabia with the president last week with Sam Altman - Not together. In the same place at the same time. I was with the president and Sam was in the neighborhood. Does that mean you are pushing ahead with the lawsuit against OpenAI? Yes. So I came up with the name OpenAI as an open source and as a non-profit, and I funded AI, OpenAI for the first roughly $50 million. And it was intended to be a nonprofit open source company. And now they're trying to change that for their own financial benefit into a for profit company that is closed source. So this would be like, let's say you you funded a nonprofit to help preserve

16:52the Amazon rainforest. But instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest to sold the wood. You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I funded. That's OpenAI. They've made some changes to their corporate structure, though, haven't they, since, in recognition of what, of what you've said and - No, that's just what they told the media. Okay. It's hot. They have, they have partly walked back their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made no difference to how you feel about it. So you're determined to see them in court? Of course. Okay. Well, that that's certainly going to be one to watch. I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation, because when you were here last talking to John Micklethwait, you

17:40had some pretty strong words about the risk that AI poses. And you said that you really felt what the U.S. was missing was a federal AI regulator, that, you know, something along the lines of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now, you're clearly now in a zone where you're more you're more on the cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your view changed on the need for an AI regulator? Well, it's not that I don't think there should be regulators. You think of regulators like referees on the, on the field, in sports, there should be some number of referees, but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can't kick the ball without hitting one. So in many and most of our fields in the

18:29U.S., the regulatory burden has grown over time to the point where it's like having more referees than than players on the field. So and this is a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity. It's very important to appreciate this. This has happened throughout history. When you have an extended period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that every year more laws and more regulations are passed because, you know, legislators are going to legislate. Regulators are going to regulate, and you'll get a steady pile of more and more laws and regulations over time. And so everything is illegal. And let me give you an example of a

19:21truly absurd situation. Under the Biden administration, SpaceX was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the U.S.. Now, the problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under ITAR, International Traffic and Arms Regulation, to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of the United States, because the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology and return it to their home country if they're not a permanent resident. So we're simultaneously in a situation where it is illegal to hire asylum seekers and it is also illegal to hire asylum seekers. And Biden's Department of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths being illegal. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. How absurd is - But my question was specifically about a

20:09regulator for AI, which you said three years ago was needed, and you said we need to be proactive on the regulation of AI, rather than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that? No, of course not. No, of course not. What I'm saying is that there should be some referees on the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam packed with referees, such that you could not kick a ball in any direction without hitting one. So the the fields that have been around for a long time, such as automotive, aerospace, you know, of the sort of food and drug industries are overregulated. But the new fields like artificial intelligence, are underregulated. In fact, there is no regulator at all. So there should be.

20:59You still think that. Yes. I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic common sense that you want to have at least you want you want to have a few referees in the field. You don't want have an army of referees, but you want to have a few referees on on any given field, in any given sport or any given arena industrial arena to ensure, help that public safety is taken care of. But you don't have. So so there's a there's a there's a proper number of referees. But like I said, it's actually very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If the whole field is packed with referees, that would look absurd. But if there were no referees at all, your game is not going to be as good. Okay. So let's then talk about your new world,

DOGE, conflicts of interest and South Africa

21:46your your role advising government. You are in this unique and unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX, and also now an insider's knowledge of it because of DOGE. Can you see that there is a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest in broad terms, just through that very fact? I don't think so, actually. There have been many advisors in throughout history and the U.S. government and others who have had economic interests. And I am certainly an advisor. I don't have formal power and that's it. And the president can choose to accept my advice or not. And that's that's how it goes. If there's a single contract that any of my companies have ever received that

22:40people think is somehow not was was awarded improperly, it would immediately be front page news, to say the least. And if I didn't mention it, certainly my competitors would. So if you're not seeing that then clearly there's not a conflict of interest. Yeah. There's another way, though, to look at it that, for example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies like Boeing or companies who would like to do more of the kind of work you do for NASA, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab. And because DOGE is in every federal government department, you or people who work for DOGE, and and you are the driving force behind it have an insight into those company's affairs and those company's relationships with the federal government.

23:32No. All we do is we review the organization to see if the organization has departments that are no longer relevant and are and are the contracts that are being awarded good value for money. In fact, frankly the bar is not particularly high. Is there any value for money in a contract? And if there's if there isn't, then we make recommendations to the secretary. The secretary can then choose to take those actions or not take those actions, and that's it. And then any action that that that is as a function of DOGE is posted to the DGOE website and to doge.gov, @DOGE handle on the X platform. So it's it's complete transparency and I have not seen any case where to the best of my knowledge there's even been

24:23an accusation of conflict because it is completely and utterly transparent. That's it. And what about the international dimension? Now let's think about Starlink. Starlink has obviously a very, very good internet service. It's sought after all over the world. It's critical to the frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming its way. And there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is working around the rules on Black ownership in order to allow Starlink in. And that is being done on the eve of the visit the president, Ramaphosa, is going

25:06to make to the White House. Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest? No, of course not. First of all, you should be questioning why is there, why are there racist laws in South Africa? That's the first problem. That's why you should be attacking. It's improper for there to be racist laws in South Africa. The whole whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, who was a great man, proposed, was that all races should be on an equal footing in South Africa. That's the right thing to do. Not to replace one set of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper. So the that's the that's the deal that all races should be treated equally and there should be no preference given to

25:45one or the other, whereas there are now 140 laws in South Africa that give that basically

25:54give strong preference to if you're if you're a Black South African and not otherwise. And so now I'm in this absurd situation where I was born in South Africa but can't get a license to operate in Starlink because I'm not Black. Does that seem right to you? Well, it looks like it that, it looks like that's about to change. I just asked you a question. Please answer. Does that seem right to you? Well, those rules were designed to bring - does that seem right to you, yes or no? - those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa. And it looks like the government has found a way around those rules for you. I asked you a question. This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from you.

26:35I asked you a question, yes or no? Not for me - Racist laws, yes or no? Not for me to answer. I have got a question for you about about your government works and the amount of savings - You must like racist laws then. Why do you like racist laws? This is not for me to answer. Come on. Yes it is. Now, you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question - You have to ask a question - that's difficult for you to answer. I answered my question, now you answer mine. I think if you, I'm sure you can have that conversation directly with the South African government if you want to. I want to ask you about the total. You like racist laws, I can't believe it. That's not good. I want to ask you about the total amount -

DOGE savings and USAID cuts

27:08Why do you love racist laws? I want to ask you about the total amount that you're planning to save through DOGE's work. Sure. Before the election you said it was going to be at least 2 trillion. The number currently on doge.gov is 70 billion. That's a big change. What happened to the 2 trillion? What you expect it to happen immediately? Well, is it going to happen because DOGE is supposed to run until next July. I mean, your question is absurd in its fundamental premise. Are you assuming that that on day, you know, within a few months, this is an instant 2 trillion saved? No, I'm not at all, I'm just asking is that still your aim, then, is it still your aim to get to 2 trillion? So have we not made good progress given

27:51the amount of time. That's exactly what I'm asking. So is it still your aim to go from 170 billion to 2 trillion? Of the the ability of DOGE to operate is a function of whether the government and this includes the Congress is willing to take our advice. We're not the dictators of the government. We are the advisors. And so we can we can advise. And the progress we've made thus far I think is incredible. DOGE team has done incredible work, but the magnitude of the savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress and from the executive branch of the government in general. So, we're not the dictators, we are the advisors. But thus far, for advisors with the DOGE team, to their credit, has made

28:51incredible progress. You've talked about $4 billion a day being saved, but that - that's right - that won't get which is, and I think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government is a very good thing. But if you add that up, it's not going to get to 2 trillion over the lifetime of DOGE.

29:13I'm sorry. The 4 billion. The 4 billion a day, if DOGE is going to run until next July is not going to get you to $2 trillion. But you still say it's your aim. So we'll take that as read. There's, there's, there's, there's, there's what DOGE, I mean, I feel you're somewhat trapped in the NPC dialogue tree of a tradition of a journalist. So it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who is trapped in the dialogue tree of a conventional journalist because it's like talking to a computer. So DOGE is an advisory group. We are doing the best we can as an advisory group. The progress made thus far as an advisory group is excellent. I don't think any advisory group has done better in the history of advisory

30:04groups to the government. Now we are, we do not make the laws, nor do we control the judiciary, nor do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisors. In that context, we are doing very well. Beyond that, we cannot we can't take action beyond that because we are not sort of some sort of imperial dictator of the government. There are three branches of government that are to some degree opposed to that level of cost savings. But nonetheless, let's let's not criticize whether there's 4 trillion, and instead look at the fact that that 160 billion has been saved and more will be saved, too. And as I said, I think everyone can agree that cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being

30:55responsible with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So - Yes - I can see. I can see that you're proud of that work. I do want to ask you about USAID and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day, which I and I know that you called him - Yeah, he's a huge liar. I know, you've said that already. Yeah, it's terrible. I wondered - Also - and I'm just - who does Bill Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare of children, given that he frequented Jeffrey Epstein. Okay, well, he's he's he said he regrets those - I mean he's not exactly, I wouldn't trust that guy to babysit my kids - and he's spent, he's spent, he's spent a lot of his own money on philanthropy around the world over the years.

31:40My question to you is, have you looked at the data to check if he might be right that the cuts to USAID might cost millions of lives? Yes, I'd like him to show us any any evidence whatsoever that that is true. It's false. The what we have found with USAID cuts and by the way, they haven't all been cut, the parts of USAID that were found to be even slightly useful, were transferred to the State Department. So they've not been deleted, they've simply been transferred to the State Department, but many, many times over with USAID and other organizations when when they said, oh, well, this is going to help, you know, children or it's going to help some disease eradication or something like that. And then when we asked for any evidence

32:29whatsoever, I say, well, please connect us with this group of children so we can talk to them and understand more about their issue, we get nothing. They don't to even try to prevent, show, come up with a with a show orphan, meaning like it's sort of like, well, can we at least see a few kids? Like, where are they? If they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to them and talk to their caregivers, and then we can put that thing as a response because it's what we find is an enormous amount of of fraud and graft. Okay, - And actually - let me put this example to you - very little. of it actually gets to the kids, if anything at all. Okay. Let let me put this example to you, because you grew up in South Africa, so

33:13you will know the impact of HIV AIDS well, and this is why I asked about the data. The U.S. led on international efforts to combat HIV, AIDS, treatment, prevention. And there's an initiative called PEPFAR, which is credited with saving 26 million lives in the last 20 years. It was part of the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver. The services are disrupted. And UNAIDS says if permanently discontinued, there will be another 4 million AIDS related deaths by 2029. So if you look at that example, which is backed up by data, in 2023, 630,000 people died of AIDS related illnesses, then perhaps Bill Gates has figures are not wrong. Millions of lives could be lost. First of all, the program, the the the AIDS

34:06medication program is continuing. So your fundamental premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now, do you have another example? - Not, not, - since the one you cited is false - not, Elon not in its entirety. This was not in its entirety. What you've cited is false. The program, there's a limited waiver. And UNAIDS have said that not all of the services that were previously funded by USAID are continuing. So that's that's why that's why I put that example to you. Which ones? Okay. Well, which ones aren't being funded? I'll fix it right now for. Okay. Well, actually, they're all on the UNAIDS website, so you'll be able to see them. Okay what website? But mostly they are to do with, mostly they are to do with prevention. And for example, the rollout of a drug

34:50called Lenacapavir, which was hailed as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years, which came out last year. So if you are perhaps I'm sure UNAIDS, UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to look at that again. Yes, but well, if if if in fact this is true, which I doubt it is, then we'll fix it. Okay, fine. So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered whether you have decided yet how much you're going to spend on the the upcoming midterms. Is it you've you spent a lot more money on the last U.S. election than you envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago, are you going to continue to to spend at that kind of level on future elections? I think

Political spending, Putin and the year ahead

35:41in terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future. And why is that? I think I've done enough.

35:54Is it, is it because of blowback?

35:59Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see a reason. What about political influence beyond the U.S.? How often do you speak to President Putin? I don't speak for President Putin. You've never spoken to President Putin? I was on a video call with him once about five years ago. Okay, that's the only time - Why would you think I speak to President Putin? Oh, you must, I get it, you believe the legacy media. Actually, I've heard you I've heard you speak about it. For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh, I challenged President Putin to a to, was it an arm wrestle? And I know The Wall Street Journal is reported your reported conversations, if

36:41you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once, I'll take that as read. Is there a worse publication on the face of the earth than The Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that to line up my cage for parrot droppings. That that newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's, and if you, if there's one newspaper that should be pro-capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name. But it isn't, so, I have the very lowest opinion of The Wall Street Journal. Absolute nonsense. And you clearly believe the tripe that you've written, that you've read in those papers. I read. I read very widely, and I'm putting these questions to you so that you have an opportunity to respond to them, which you are, and and for which we're all

37:25grateful to hear your responses. Okay. We are we are out of time. So you mentioned, you mentioned, me challenging, I did so on on the X platform. I challenged Vladimir Putin. to single combat - Okay - over the, vut I didn't talk to him. That was a post on the X platform. Great, that's why I asked you and you've and you've clarified and explain. Thank you. That's that's why I was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and you said you haven't other than a video call. Yeah, the reported the conversations are - typical legacy media lies. Okay. Listen, I actually thought I might give Grok the last word, because when I asked Grok what your hardest challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple

38:08high stake ventures amid financial, regulatory and public relations crises. And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether you do think that this is a pivotal year in your life.

38:25Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal. And this one is no different. Um, so I mean, in terms of interesting things that hopefully are accomplished this year, the getting starships to be fully reusable so that the that we catch both the booster and the ship, which will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever in history, which is would be a profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessary to make life multi-planetary and ultimately become a spacefaring civilization. We've got Neuralink, which has now helped five patients restore capability using the telepathy implants where they're able to control a computer simply by thinking. We'll be doing our first patient to restore, to

39:22restore sight with our Blindsight implant, which is either end of this year or early next. In fact, that might that first patient might be in UAE since we have a relationship with UAE and the Cleveland Clinic there. I think what's running on AI fronts, we are close to what you might call AGI or digital superintelligence. And I think we'll see, we are seeing an explosion in digital superintelligence here. And then we've got at Tesla, the, we'll be launching unsupervised autonomy, basically self-driving cars with no one in them in Austin next month. So it's it's a big year for sure. Many other things in the works too. Okay. I'm a technologist, first and foremost. Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here at Qatar Economic Forum.

40:17Thank you.