Elon Musk Says He Plans to Cut Back Political Spending
Elon Musk attends a cabinet meeting at the White House wearing MAGA (Make America Great Again) hats on April 30. Credit - Andrew Harnik - Getty Images
Elon Musk, who spent more than $250 million dollars on Donald Trump's election campaign, has said he plans to reduce political spending, stating "I've done enough".
"In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said when asked about potential involvement in the midterms, during an interview at the Qatar Economic Forum.
When questioned whether this was due to "blowback", Musk responded: "Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see a reason."
Musk, the world's richest man with a personal wealth around $423bn, was the President's largest donor for the 2024 election. Following the election, Musk was given a leading role in the administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump administration initiative aimed at reducing federal spending and bureaucracy.
Read more: Inside Elon Musk's War on Washington
Since the election, the billionaire also put $13 million towards the Republican candidate Brad Schimel for Wisconsin Supreme Court, which was ultimately won by Democrat-backed Susan Crawford.
Read more: 'He's at the Apex of Power Now': A Preview of Trump's Second Term
Musk is expected to be reducing his involvement in DOGE, in order to focus on his businesses. In April, he announced that he would be significantly cutting back the time spent working with DOGE amid falls in profits and sales for his electric car company Tesla.
Beyond the United States, Musk has also shown support for right-wing parties and candidates. In January, the billionaire endorsed the leader of the AfD party Alice Weidel during an audio livestream on X.
'Only AfD can save Germany, end of story, and people really need to get behind AfD, and otherwise things are going to get very, very much worse in Germany,' Musk said during the livestream.
He has also voiced support for the right-wing Reform UK party in the United Kingdom, saying in an X post in December: 'Only Reform can save Britain.'
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump might be the most accessible president ever — for spies or scammers
President Trump reportedly picks up when his cell rings even if he doesn't know who's calling. Senior members of his team also love chatting on their personal devices. That makes the administration uniquely vulnerable to basic scams like spoofed calls and impersonation attempts. Why it matters: If Trump is willing to answer unknown numbers, as The Atlantic reported this week, there's no guarantee a scammer, impersonator, or even a foreign intelligence operative couldn't have a chat with the president. There's no evidence that has actually happened. But recent reports involving Trump and other top officials have raised red flags about the security of their communications. Driving the news: Federal authorities are investigating a scheme where someone spoofed the phone number of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles to impersonate her in calls to senators, governors, and CEOs, per the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, Chinese hackers reportedly penetrated U.S. telecom networks as early as summer 2023, according to Bloomberg — a year earlier than previously known. That access has been used by China-backed group Salt Typhoon to spy on Trump, Vice President Vance, and other officials, the NYT reported. Then there are the series of Signal-related scandals involving former national security adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others. Between the lines: Eavesdropping on world leaders isn't new — but it's a lot easier if the leader in question is using a personal phone and eschewing standard cybersecurity practices. Flashback: In 2017, Trump had two phones — one issued through the White House and only capable of making phone calls, and a less secure phone equipped just for social media. At the time, he was urged to swap out his Twitter phone at least once a month. Politico reported he'd instead go months without security checks. It's unclear how many of those security protocols were brought back in this time around. "I think people gave up on that years ago," one adviser told The Atlantic. In a written statement, White House communications director Steven Cheung said the administration would "not discuss or disclose security measures regarding the President." "President Trump is the most transparent and accessible President in American history," Cheung said. "World leaders, heads of state, elected officials, and business titans all reach out to him because they know America is back under President Trump's leadership. "Whereas, Joe Biden was hidden and sheltered by his handlers because he was a total embarrassment and bumbling idiot during his time in office," Cheung added. The big picture: Since returning to office, the Trump administration has: Ignored basic security norms, including heavy reliance on Signal and personal numbers. Gutted existing federal cybersecurity leadership, with one-third of CISA's staff already gone. Empowered security-weakening tech initiatives through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been pursuing projects like using a buggy AI tool to crawl sensitive government data. Threat level: AI tools can clone a voice using just a few seconds of audio, and the FBI warned last month that scammers are already using them to impersonate senior officials.
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Chinese hackers and user lapses turn smartphones into a 'mobile security crisis'
WASHINGTON (AP) — Cybersecurity investigators noticed a highly unusual software crash — it was affecting a small number of smartphones belonging to people who worked in government, politics, tech and journalism. The crashes, which began late last year and carried into 2025, were the tipoff to a sophisticated cyberattack that may have allowed hackers to infiltrate a phone without a single click from the user. The attackers left no clues about their identities, but investigators at the cybersecurity firm iVerify noticed that the victims all had something in common: They worked in fields of interest to China's government and had been targeted by Chinese hackers in the past. Foreign hackers have increasingly identified smartphones, other mobile devices and the apps they use as a weak link in U.S. cyberdefenses. Groups linked to China's military and intelligence service have targeted the smartphones of prominent Americans and burrowed deep into telecommunication networks, according to national security and tech experts. It shows how vulnerable mobile devices and apps are and the risk that security failures could expose sensitive information or leave American interests open to cyberattack, those experts say. 'The world is in a mobile security crisis right now,' said Rocky Cole, a former cybersecurity expert at the National Security Agency and Google and now chief operations officer at iVerify. 'No one is watching the phones.' U.S. authorities warned in December of a sprawling Chinese hacking campaign designed to gain access to the texts and phone conversations of an unknown number of Americans. 'They were able to listen in on phone calls in real time and able to read text messages,' said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the senior Democrat on the Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, created to study the geopolitical threat from China. Chinese hackers also sought access to phones used by Donald Trump and running mate JD Vance during the 2024 campaign. The Chinese government has denied allegations of cyberespionage, and accused the U.S. of mounting its own cyberoperations. It says America cites national security as an excuse to issue sanctions against Chinese organizations and keep Chinese technology companies from the global market. 'The U.S. has long been using all kinds of despicable methods to steal other countries' secrets,' Lin Jian, a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, said at a recent press conference in response to questions about a CIA push to recruit Chinese informants. U.S. intelligence officials have said China poses a significant, persistent threat to U.S. economic and political interests, and it has harnessed the tools of digital conflict: online propaganda and disinformation, artificial intelligence and cyber surveillance and espionage designed to deliver a significant advantage in any military conflict. Mobile networks are a top concern. The U.S. and many of its closest allies have banned Chinese telecom companies from their networks. Other countries, including Germany, are phasing out Chinese involvement because of security concerns. But Chinese tech firms remain a big part of the systems in many nations, giving state-controlled companies a global footprint they could exploit for cyberattacks, experts say. Chinese telecom firms still maintain some routing and cloud storage systems in the U.S. — a growing concern to lawmakers. 'The American people deserve to know if Beijing is quietly using state-owned firms to infiltrate our critical infrastructure,' U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich. and chairman of the China committee, which in April issued subpoenas to Chinese telecom companies seeking information about their U.S. operations. Mobile devices have become an intel treasure trove Mobile devices can buy stocks, launch drones and run power plants. Their proliferation has often outpaced their security. The phones of top government officials are especially valuable, containing sensitive government information, passwords and an insider's glimpse into policy discussions and decision-making. The White House said last week that someone impersonating Susie Wiles, Trump's chief of staff, reached out to governors, senators and business leaders with texts and phone calls. It's unclear how the person obtained Wiles' connections, but they apparently gained access to the contacts in her personal cellphone, The Wall Street Journal reported. The messages and calls were not coming from Wiles' number, the newspaper reported. While most smartphones and tablets come with robust security, apps and connected devices often lack these protections or the regular software updates needed to stay ahead of new threats. That makes every fitness tracker, baby monitor or smart appliance another potential foothold for hackers looking to penetrate networks, retrieve information or infect systems with malware. Federal officials launched a program this year creating a 'cyber trust mark' for connected devices that meet federal security standards. But consumers and officials shouldn't lower their guard, said Snehal Antani, former chief technology officer for the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command. 'They're finding backdoors in Barbie dolls,' said Antani, now CEO of a cybersecurity firm, referring to concerns from researchers who successfully hacked the microphone of a digitally connected version of the toy. Risks emerge when smartphone users don't take precautions It doesn't matter how secure a mobile device is if the user doesn't follow basic security precautions, especially if their device contains classified or sensitive information, experts say. Mike Waltz, who departed as Trump's national security adviser, inadvertently added The Atlantic's editor-in-chief to a Signal chat used to discuss military plans with other top officials. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had an internet connection that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols set up in his office so he could use the Signal messaging app on a personal computer, the AP has reported. Hegseth has rejected assertions that he shared classified information on Signal, a popular encrypted messaging app not approved for the use of communicating classified information. China and other nations will try to take advantage of such lapses, and national security officials must take steps to prevent them from recurring, said Michael Williams, a national security expert at Syracuse University. 'They all have access to a variety of secure communications platforms,' Williams said. "We just can't share things willy-nilly.'
Washington Post
36 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Republicans are right to blanch at this Elon Musk gravy train
Elon Musk last week slammed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' for the trillions in new federal debt it is projected to cost — a subject well worth the nation's attention. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), however, pointed to a different possible motive for the tech billionaire's dissatisfaction with the bill: It 'has an effect on his business,' the speaker said. Johnson suggested that Musk began his campaign against the bill after they spoke about an obscure policy the act would roll back — one that has directed billions of dollars to Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle company. Johnson's claims provide a revealing look at the side effects of well-meaning — but not all that well designed — government mandates (in this case, for the automobile industry to reduce emissions in specific ways), and how they can distort both politics and the economy. While the bill has many flaws, Republicans are right to object to the Tesla gravy train. Rather than keep it, as Musk would probably prefer, they should replace it with clean energy policies that promote competition and choice. Tesla heavily depends on selling automotive regulatory credits to traditional automakers. Manufacturers of gas-powered cars are failing to produce as many zero-emissions vehicles as national and state-level mandates from Washington, Sacramento and Brussels require. Consumers' appetite for EVs has grown, but not enough for traditional carmakers to transition off gas as quickly as the mandate-writers would have liked. So those companies must buy credits from EV-makers such as Tesla, which produces only zero-emissions vehicles. In 2024, Tesla made $2.76 billion on emissions deals, a 54 percent increase from the year before. During the first quarter of 2025, Tesla reported earning $595 million in regulatory credits, even as its total net income for the period was only $409 million. A February Post analysis found that Musk and his businesses received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits over the years, including $11.4 billion through automotive regulatory credits. 'About a third of Tesla's $35 billion in profits since 2014 has come from selling federal and state regulatory credits to other automakers,' The Post tabulated. 'These credits played a crucial role in the company's first profitable quarter in 2013 and its first full year of profitability in 2020. … Without the credits, Tesla would have lost more than $700 million in 2020, marking a seventh-consecutive year with no profits.' If you haven't heard of these regulatory credits, you're not alone. Even for those paying close attention, the EV policy fight that has attracted the most attention has been the One Big Beautiful Bill's proposed phaseout of $7,500 tax credits for electric car-buyers. Musk has expressed openness to eliminating the policy; analysts speculate that doing so could entrench his dominance in the U.S. EV market by making it harder for new entrants to break in. Such are the arcane politics and weird incentives that complex government regulations can promote, as companies compete for the profits that can flow from getting a clause inserted or deleted from the federal code. To be sure, the federal EV mandate's writers were well-intentioned. They wanted to accelerate the needed transition to electric vehicles, as transportation overtook electricity generation as the country's largest source of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. They used various policy levers available to them — from the Clean Air Act to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — because Congress failed to enact more efficient clean energy policies. Republicans can change that, eliminating the mandates, tax credits and other subsidies that riddle federal law and replacing them with a robust and rising carbon tax. This policy would empower consumers and companies — each acting according to what makes the most sense for themselves, without government micromanagement — to decide how to green the economy. Maybe consumers would prefer to buy more plug-in gas-electric hybrid cars that eliminate 'range anxiety' before fully moving to EVs, which will be easier when electric car technology is more mature and charging infrastructure more ubiquitous. That's the beauty of a carbon tax: The emission costs from consumers' decisions would be reflected in the sticker prices they pay, maximizing choice and minimizing federal micromanagement — all while reducing the overall expense of a green energy transition. Admittedly, carbon taxes have been less politically successful than other policies that disguise their costs to consumers. (EV mandates boost car prices across the board; renewable electricity requirements increase power bills; etc.) But the politics cannot be as unflattering as the Musk-Trump meltdown the country had to endure last week.
