Businessweek Daily
Fallout from the Musk-Trump breakup
View in browser
Bloomberg

The very public breakup of the White House best buddies created a lot of social media entertainment on Thursday. But there’s a serious side to the fight, as Max Chafkin writes today about the fallout for the businesses at the center of it all. Plus: A supercharged Florida health-care hustle, and a troubling story about a vulnerability at the SEC.

Help us improve Bloomberg newsletters: Take a quick survey to share your thoughts on your signup experience and what you’d like to see in the future. If this email was forwarded to you, click here to sign up.

Last week, the New York Times published a blockbuster story, citing anonymous sources and private messages, that presented a portrait of the world’s richest man in the throes of what could only be described as a world-class crackup. Musk, according to the Times, had been using ketamine with such regularity that he’d developed bladder issues, along with a behavioral pattern that worried his friends. The article suggested that Musk’s drug use might explain much of his erratic behavior—including his halting, chainsaw-wielding performance at a right-wing political conference, his Nazi-like gesture on Inauguration Day and his various child-custody disputes. Musk denied the allegations, accusing the Times of “lying their a-- off.”

I bring this up because, as out of control as the behavior portrayed in the story was, it doesn’t seem as self-destructive as Musk’s public display on Thursday. Given the opportunity to exit the White House gracefully and on good terms with Donald Trump—complete with a made-for-TV sendoff that would’ve allowed him to signal to investors that he was no longer distracted by politics but maintaining his direct line to the president—Musk chose to blow the whole thing up. On X, his social media platform, he hurled unfounded accusations, made threats and generally behaved like the guy the Times article had described.

Musk’s tantrum began during a televised Oval Office meeting between Trump and Germany’s new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, during which Trump said he was “very disappointed in Elon” for opposing the president’s tax bill. Musk started tweeting insults, which led Trump to threaten to “terminate Elon’s government subsidies and contracts.” By the end of the day, Musk had (a) threatened to start a new political party; (b) implied that Trump was a pedophile, because of his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and that Trump had covered up Epstein’s crimes to protect himself; (c) called for Trump’s removal and replacement with Vice President JD Vance; and (d) threatened to cut off the US from the service it uses to move crew and cargo to and from the International Space Station.

Musk and Trump in happier times. Photographer: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Amid all of this it was easy to forget that it was only on May 24 that Musk promised to “be super focused on his companies” and said he would be giving up politics entirely in favor of a “24/7” commitment to Tesla, SpaceX and xAI. His devotion to his work would be so extreme, he said, he would be sleeping on the floor at those companies. As I wrote in this newsletter last week, this promise was dubious given Musk’s track record, but investors seemed to buy it briefly. Not anymore. They reacted to Musk’s new feud by frantically selling Tesla’s stock. It closed down 14%, one of the worst single-day performances in its history. For comparison, when the Times dropped its report, the stock closed down roughly 3%. There’s alleged-ketamine-use recklessness, and then there’s pick-a-political-fight-to-the-death-with-Trump recklessness.

Unfortunately, in last week’s newsletter, I also argued that readers shouldn’t bet on a Trump-Musk breakup. That looked smart for exactly one day (last Friday, when the president welcomed the CEO into the Oval Office and they promised to continue to work closely together). Reconciliation may still be possible, but it’s probably fair to say that, by simultaneously calling for Trump’s impeachment and threatening to sabotage America’s space program (“Go ahead make my day,” he taunted in an X post), Musk has made that possibility far-fetched for the moment. After making the threat about the space program, Musk backed down, conceding that it might be a good idea to cool off for a few days and try to repair the damage he caused. But then overnight he went back to tweeting, railing against Steve Bannon, the former Trump campaign chair and now a conservative influencer, as a “communist retard.”

Tesla investors are an optimistic bunch, and the stock opened up this morning, rising more than 5% by noon in New York, perhaps on the expectation that Musk would make up with Trump. The problem is that Musk, by pouring money into Trump’s election and putting himself at the center of an unpopular (and so far unsuccessful) effort to cut government spending while humiliating civil servants, has painted himself into a political corner. Having alienated himself from Tesla’s original customer base, Trump and his fans may be all Musk has left.

Of course, Tesla’s board has another option: jettison Musk, either temporarily or permanently. They’ve considered it previously, but given the sway Musk holds over the company—and the makeup of the board and shareholder base, which are largely composed of loyalists—it’s hard to imagine, even now. Still, the case for a leadership change (or at least a leave of absence) has never been stronger.

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST: This week on Everybody’s Business, Max Chafkin and co-host Stacey Vanek Smith discuss the messy Musk-Trump breakup as well as Taylor Swift’s reclaiming of her music library and the enduring power of gold. Listen and subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, iHeart and the Bloomberg Terminal.

In Brief

Deekfake Ads Fueled an Insurance Scam

Photo Illustration: Ryan Haskins for Bloomberg Businessweek

“Hi guys, it’s Taylor Swift. Remember those stimulus checks? Well, there’s a new thing going viral.”

If you were poor and online last year, the ads were inescapable: flashing images of cash and Amazon boxes, narrated by AI-faked celebrities such as Swift, podcaster Joe Rogan or game-show host Steve Harvey. Each described a secretive government program that handed out money—all you had to do was ask. “They’re giving out $6,400 to anyone who makes the call,” intoned a fake Dr. Phil. “If you don’t act now, you’re basically throwing away $6,400,” said a shirtless rendering of misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate as he tossed something at the camera. “That’s just stupid.”

The ads were so pervasive that the administration of then-President Joe Biden had to deny the existence of a secret stimulus program. The government was offering valuable insurance subsidies, but not any kind of cash card and certainly not $6,400. That didn’t stop the ads. The news outlet 404 Media was able to find hundreds of them, which had been viewed more than 195 million times on YouTube alone before being taken down.

The ads were deceptive, but they weren’t trying to con people out of their money—at least not directly. The goal was to sign them up for actual government-subsidized health-insurance plans, whether they wanted them or not.

Zeke Faux and Zachary R. Mider explain the lucrative scheme fueled by deepfake ads: Chasing Big Money With the Health-Care Hustlers of South Florida

The Inside Story of a Hack at the SEC

Illustration: Maxime Mouysset for Bloomberg Businessweek

Chapter 1: Redemption

For the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Jan. 15, 2019, was a day of redemption. The agency filed one of its highest-profile enforcement cases in years, capping the work of two dozen staff across five divisions.

The case, recounted in a 43-page complaint, read like an airport potboiler: Ukrainian cybercriminals had infiltrated a vast computer network containing soon-to-be-published earnings reports for some of America’s biggest companies, then sold the information to a shadowy web of traders. As well as being one of the investigating authorities, the SEC was the victim. Hackers had found a way into the agency’s Edgar database, perhaps the world’s biggest repository of corporate filings. These cybercriminals were already wanted by the SEC for prior offenses. They were like fugitives robbing the police evidence room while the precinct was out looking for them.

The breach, disclosed by the agency 16 months earlier, had been a nightmare for the SEC. It’s the SEC, after all, that punishes companies for lapses in cybersecurity. “The SEC’s Cyber Embarrassment,” ran an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Senators grilled Jay Clayton, the agency’s then-chairman, about what had happened and whether the SEC could be trusted with sensitive financial data.

An SEC press release accompanying the civil complaint offered some reassurance. The hack’s take was a few million dollars. The flaw that allowed it to happen had been quickly patched. While the traders took “multiple steps to conceal their fraud,” the SEC’s “sophisticated analysis” cracked the case open. “Today’s action shows the SEC’s commitment and ability to unravel these schemes and identify the perpetrators even when they operate from outside our borders,” the agency’s head of enforcement said.

Both the SEC and the Department of Justice charged the hackers in absentia with securities and wire fraud. The SEC also charged seven traders, including two Americans, with participating in the conspiracy, describing the evidence against them as “overwhelming.”

That’s the official SEC version of events. But, when someone involved suggested I take another look, I set about trying to find out exactly what happened, and whether it could happen again.

Keep reading to see what Liam Vaughan found: The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling

It’s Pizza Night

$18.14
That’s the average price of a large pizza at the top five chains, according to analyst Richard Shank at Technomic. Deena Shanker writes in her Extra Salt column about what pizza sales can tell us about the American economy.

Paying More for Cars

“On the consumer side, they’re seeing several thousand dollars of actual-experience price increase, whereas the factory is saying, ‘No man, we didn’t raise prices at all,’ Stealth is a good word for it.”
Morris Smith III
 A Ford dealer in Kansas
The sticker price on a particular make and model of vehicle may not have changed because of Trump’s trade war. But automakers have been quietly cutting rebates and limiting cheap financing deals, which increases how much Americans are paying. 

More From Bloomberg

Like Businessweek Daily? Check out these newsletters:

  • Markets Daily has what’s happening in stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities right now
  • Supply Lines follows the trade wars, tariff threats and logistics shocks that are upending business and spreading volatility
  • FOIA Files goes behind the scenes with Jason Leopold to uncover documents that have never been seen before
  • Working Capital analyzes trends in leadership, management and the art of career building
  • Bloomberg Pursuits is your weekly guide to the best in travel, eating, drinking, fashion, driving and living well

Explore all Bloomberg newsletters.

Follow Us

Like getting this newsletter? Subscribe to Bloomberg.com for unlimited access to trusted, data-driven journalism and subscriber-only insights.

Want to sponsor this newsletter? Get in touch here.

You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Businessweek Daily newsletter. If a friend forwarded you this message, sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Unsubscribe
Bloomberg.com
Contact Us
Bloomberg L.P.
731 Lexington Avenue,
New York, NY 10022
Ads Powered By Liveintent Ad Choices