English day 7

Ngay 16/11/2026

In 2024, after President Donald Trump won the election, Tesla stock jumped nearly 15%in a single session, then rose about 29%during election week. Billionaire Elon Musk appeared to win big by betting on politics. But two years later, as the Democratic Party gained control of Congress, hearings and investigations into DOGE, government contracts, and even Starlink in Ukraine were placed on the agenda. From a beneficiary of proximity to power to the risk of having to account before Congress, just how big a gamble is Elon

Musk facing, and what does the history of American billionaires say about the limits of money? >> Hello, and thank you for watching the YouTube channel of PTC News; I am Thanh Nga. Ladies and gentlemen, the victory of President Donald Trump in the 2024 US election once brought significant benefits to billionaire Elon Musk. Tesla stock soared, Musk’s wealth grew by tens of billions of dollars, while his businesses were expected to benefit from the new administration’s policies. However, the political game also harbors

significant risks. After the 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk faces the risk of increased Congressional oversight, and potentially being subpoenaed for hearings regarding his role in government spending cuts, contracts with Washington, and controversies surrounding the Starlink satellite system in Ukraine. From a billionaire who won big by betting on politics, is Elon Musk now facing the price of that very gamble? We will analyze these issues today with our familiar guest, economic expert Bui Ngoc

Son. Yes, first of all, thank you for joining our conversation today. >> Yes, thank you for inviting me to participate. >> Ladies and gentlemen, billionaire Elon Musk’s political gamble has two contrasting moments. In 2024, Mr. Trump’s victory fueled expectations for Tesla and Musk’s technology companies. But by the 2026 midterm elections, the political balance shifted, accompanied by market volatility and the threat of increased Congressional oversight. Beyond the hundreds of millions of

dollars in donations, what needs to be analyzed is not just who Musk helped win , but what he himself gained, what he could lose, and why business interests are so sensitive to American votes. Yes , Doctor, following Donald Trump's victory in the November 5, 2024, presidential election, Tesla stock jumped nearly 15%in the November 6 session, adding about $ 120 billion to the company's market cap. By the end of the election period, the stock had risen about 29%, increasing Tesla's market

value by more than $ 230 billion. In your opinion, why could an election result cause the market to revalue Tesla so quickly and strongly, and are investors buying actual business prospects or the expectations surrounding the company head's unique political position? >> Well, there are two points to that. First, what is it? It's the political position, which is true; everyone can see it. Because he is the person who contributed significantly to Donald Trump becoming president. And second, naturally, that is a

political position that could bring many advantages to the company he operates. Right? What is the second thing? It is the company itself, because at that time, his company was a major tech star, and everyone had very high expectations. Additionally, there is a combination where the role—the slogan of Donald Trump is to make America great again. And to be great again, you need people who have advanced technologies like Elon Musk. So those two things give people a feeling of being slightly overly

euphoric. Therefore, the markets all feel that if we pour money into this stock, it will surely win, which is why it pushed the stock price up and increased the company's value, that's all. That is where the issue lies, it's that simple. Yes. >> As you shared, are investors expecting more from the special political position of billionaire Elon Musk rather than from business prospects, right? >> Indeed, at this time, the political prospect is what's high, rather than the

business prospect. At that time, it also had a high trend, because remember, it wasn't low, but calling it high, people were already used to it. In 2024, everything has changed, because people know that China has also emerged, so if it were before that point, China's role in electric vehicles might not have been as prominent, and he was still much stronger. But by 2024, it is clear that China has begun to emerge, so his technological position and the company's position are no longer as strong as

before. However, it is believed that because he has such contributions, in the end, in such a gamble—or relationship—Tesla will certainly have many more advantages. And what is the greatest advantage? It is that we must remember they still hope that the $ 7,500 tax incentive, which previous administrations since Obama's time gave to electric vehicle companies , will still be maintained. And at that time, some people thought that even though they knew Mr. Trump was someone who didn't like electric

vehicles and still wanted to support gasoline-powered cars. They still thought that with this relationship, Mr. Trump's decisions might possibly be delayed. Therefore, sales prospects will still be good. Thus, people believe that the outlook is rising, so they are placing their bets there. But later we saw that it was a miscalculation because later Mr. Trump cut the 7,500 subsidy entirely , which eventually caused the company to struggle, and from that point, the two began attacking each other relentlessly

. >> Yes, Doctor, prior to the 2024 election , Tesla was under close scrutiny regarding its self-driving technology. Meanwhile, SpaceX, Starlink, and billionaire Musk’s other tech projects depend to varying degrees on government licenses, contracts, and decisions. Analysts believe that a close relationship with President-elect Trump could help billionaire Musk’s businesses gain advantages in autonomous vehicle regulations, satellite launches, and public procurement. Sir, besides the rise in stock prices, in what areas

could Musk actually benefit? >> Meaning, if we look at it correctly, at that time it was just an expectation that he would gain advantages regarding government contracts. That was real, and later it also came to pass. But as for Tesla, what was the expectation? It was to maintain the previously mentioned subsidy. But as we know later, it didn't happen. However, the others gained a lot; why is that? It is because Elon Musk was then seen as the owner of technologies that could relate to issues of national defense and

national security. Therefore, people see that Mr. Trump is the kind of person who ...Wants to make America great again, so he must have new technology. So, Elon Musk being there and supporting him to become president...Definitively means he will benefit a great deal. And that is actually true. And after the fact, we see many government contracts, for example, purchasing Starlink services for government communication. And then, all the SpaceX contracts for services started to increase as they were hired for projects.

That is very clear. And now, there are other prospects where it is clearly seen that Elon Musk is the one who could benefit greatly as well. At the same time, here is another thing , what is it? People believe that beyond the contracts, there is another prospect , what is it? The prospect that the progress of projects Elon Musk conducts will be very fast. This is because it is believed that these men have a certain goal, what is it? To cut government administrative procedures so that technologies can

advance quickly. Especially since Elon Musk is betting on self-driving cars, Starlink, and SpaceX , he wants that. Meanwhile, U.S. aerospace agencies still follow a certain sequence. They consider approving everything must be done carefully. But they argue that this is a long, time-consuming process that slows down their progress. Therefore, they want that to be shortened. And if that is the case, it fits very well with Donald Trump. Because he still believes that the government in the past placed many

disadvantages on him, and even the media kept reporting negative things, which is his personality. He thinks that anyone who says anything bad about him is playing dirty against him. So, while this person jumps in, both men agree, saying vote for me and I will let you do it. And it makes perfect sense for him to do it, because if things are done quickly, one's progress will be very fast. And conversely, they have an agreement on what? Cutting down this apparatus. This strikes right at the mentality that

people think, well, it is wasting money and the budget is swelling with debt, so now coming in to deal with that directly , first of all, what is it? They gain reputation while simultaneously streamlining the machinery, reducing wait times, and speeding things up, which in turn accelerates their own projects, right? And they even gain money, with some being a bit impulsive; for instance, Elon Musk even touted that he could save around 1 to 2 trillion to then redistribute to the people. So when you add all those things

together, people realize that these individuals have both corporate interests and personal stakes, leading them to collaborate and lift each other up, creating an expectation that once successful, their business prospects, stock prices, and reputations will all rise. And do you remember, if we look back at that moment, they showed what you might call extreme excitement, and the photo I will probably never forget is what? It's the picture of Elon Musk jumping up, raising both hands, and exposing his

belly, signifying that moment of victory . Actions like this show that these individuals have a problem with being overly excited, seemingly driven more by their own emotions than by a calculated view of the political arena, policy, or politics itself. >> Yes, exactly as desired to cut administrative procedures, after helping President Donald Trump enter the White House in 2024, billionaire Elon Musk was immediately involved in DOGE, right? The Department of Government Efficiency, established by Mr. Trump with the goal

of streamlining the bureaucracy, cutting budget spending, and improving the operational efficiency of U.S. federal agencies. So, Doctor, how do you evaluate this move, and has it truly delivered the expected results since President Trump put this agency into operation? >> So it involves both individual interests regarding the company and, at the same time, issues of a personal nature; having reviewed it, I find it indeed reflects both of those aspects. As for whether it's efficient, nobody

has proven a thing. Why is that? It is because, firstly, what does that even mean? It is an acronym; it stands for a department called government efficiency . In short, people say this is a play on words, because in the past he had some currency or something, and now he is using those exact initial letters to name it and carry out that work. Now, first of all, people ask—and I have seen this—is it true that it will cut up to 160,000 government employees? And as for the money, later on, the summary claims they could cut about 160

billion dollars. Yes, so now people are asking, if you have 160 billion, then where did you promise that 1,000 or 2,000 billion would come from? The moment he said 1,000 or 2,000 billion, I asked what kind of government cuts could possibly yield that amount, and why? That is because, strictly speaking, from my perspective, there is a very clear ailment in terms of management. For instance, as I understand it, once a bureaucratic apparatus is established, after it operates for a while, it tends to expand.

That is because, like you, you want to show your role and work, and even when you have more capital, you have to find ways to expand the work, so you grow larger, right? And so, there will be some things that are unnecessary but keep expanding. So those things need to be addressed, right ? Right. However, the situation in the U.S. is that if that were to happen, it would be very limited because their mechanism involves intense debate. You can see that even getting a small amount of funding for a program leads to

arguing over every penny, so how could anyone claim to cut a trillion dollars all at once? I say that's just not possible. So then, the question becomes , what happens after the cuts are made? The reason it’s causing such effects is that his method of cutting is very indiscriminate, in the sense that he’s acting on his own initiative. Of course , this isn't really "cutting" in the sense of eliminating a department, because talking about elimination would require Congress, and he doesn't have

that authority. So what is he actually cutting? He’s cutting these programs, certain departments, certain websites he disapproves of, or even some agencies; he's cutting them all, even the Voice of America. In other words, he believes these are all just wasteful ways of spending money . With cuts like that, now people are starting to ask a lot of questions. First of all, it’s causing a lot of chaos. As soon as he made the cuts, some agencies—for example, those full of key experts in the nuclear industry and

nuclear safety—were affected. When they asked where that department went, they were told everyone had been fired, and then they had to ask who was going to oversee nuclear safety, so they had to start calling people back. Then there’s the air traffic control industry; they made cuts there too, which led to overworked staff and subsequently caused a few aviation traffic accidents. And then there are many health agencies and programs that were all cut, cut, and cut again. So, in the end, people are

saying that even if you calculate that amount of money—let's say it's 160 or 200 billion dollars as he claims. People are saying that the subsequent lawsuits and legal issues are creating a massive mess. Because if you look at it from that perspective, I’d say his rationale for cutting—claiming that things are bureaucratic, redundant, and wasteful— is something I think might have some merit. But if you want to do it right according to the American process, what should you do? You have to conduct

research, surveys, and provide justifications, right? You must, meaning all those justifications must go to Congress, be presented, and once they feel it is right, it becomes law for you to implement. When you start implementing, you must know who, where, how, and what the compensation will be. Not like here, where employees wake up one morning and see an email that they have been fired. That creates a lot of chaos. So why is this way of working not the American way? It is because these guys are applying a

corporate management style to govern the state apparatus. That is the biggest mistake these guys are making. In a company, only you and your people are harmed. But here, it involves the entire state system. That is why many veterans heard Trump say, "I will make America great again," and they liked it. Right? And he also made a few promises about taking care of housing for veterans, so they liked that and voted for him. But after voting, a while later they ask, "Where is my salary?" Asking,

"Where is my pay?" They say that the social security agency has been disbanded, so there is no one left to process or issue their paychecks. It is very chaotic, so people ask, can you really call this efficient? No one can prove it. And what will this be proven in? Once the upcoming election is over, they will be called in to testify about this matter. Only then will we know for sure. But as of now, in my assessment, it is government chaos that is more personal in nature than true government reform.

And why is that? Regarding government efficiency, the argument on this side is that federal agencies haven't really increased their personnel levels much since the 1990s. And the spending budget has also remained largely flat. Meanwhile, the GDP has increased by trillions of dollars since 1990. This implies that if we look at it properly, the U.S. government apparatus is actually operating very efficiently. It's managing an economy with such massive GDP growth without expanding in scale,

which means it is efficient. So, on what basis are you claiming that they are working inefficiently? Some say there might be personal motives, as they found the approval process for these things too slow and were frustrated, so now that they have power, they are acting on those intentions. What about agencies like the tax and health departments that deal with people's personal data? And you are a businessman. If you now hold that personal data, what if you gain business advantages later on? That

is a conflict of interest; it’s all just chaotic and messy. >> Yes, Doctor, according to the results updated on November 5, 2026, out of the 37 House candidates supported by billionaire Musk, only three won, 33 lost, and one race remains undecided at the time of reporting. How do you view this failure, and what does the defeat of these many candidates reflect about the limits of a billionaire's influence on issues voters truly care about, like prices, jobs, and income? >> Well, from the perspective of this

election, it is a matter of the Trump administration as a whole. His tariffs caused prices to rise, and the war in Iran caused prices to rise, which are very significant factors. And as for Elon Musk himself, right? Regarding the second point and the second aspect, why is it that despite Elon Musk investing so much money, he isn't achieving results like before? He is actually losing quite badly. Why is that? Because if we look at this solely from Elon Musk's perspective, how should we interpret it?

What is the first thing? It's his "burn " and all the trouble he caused; remember that after that, many people started to hate him, stopped buying his cars, and even smashed or set fire to them. Seeing things like that, we have to say he’s on the wrong path. What is the second thing? After that point in time, you must remember that even now, people realize he hasn't proven anything good at all. And the reason for the high number of failures you mentioned is that the foundation for Musk and Trump to rise

seemed to be based on the MAGA movement . The MAGA movement was built by people, and only much later did Musk jump in during the final stage to support Trump and bring in the tech group to help him become president. So, how does that MAGA group feel now? Look back after two years of his presidency, and you'll see people like Taylor Greene have already left the game . Why is that? Because everything they hoped for from the Trump administration , they are now receiving the exact opposite. Right? And then there's Tucker

Carlson, who has also left the game. Now , all those formerly prominent figures have left, and in the end, it’s just the two of them left together. So I ask, everything you gentlemen promised turned out to be the opposite. You promised no wars, yet there are wars . And you promised to lower gas prices to under two dollars a gallon, or at least under three dollars, but now it's over four dollars. How do you explain that? Now, if you ask who benefits, ultimately it's just Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump getting

richer, while the rest of us gain nothing. In short, once people are fed up, no matter if you throw hundreds of millions or even hundreds of billions at them, you will never win because America is a process of free thought, exchange, and open competition. So, only things that are right and truly serve the common interest can be persuasive. I trusted you at first because of your promises. But once your promises prove problematic , you can never use money to buy people's trust again. That is precisely

the issue here in America. That is why they are losing now. It is that bad. And surely, Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk will have to face the consequences. Starting next year and moving forward, there will be many, not just a few. >> Without even seeing the long-term consequences, we immediately saw the immediate impact as Tesla and SpaceX stocks were sold off right after the results on November 4th, right, Doctor? >> Exactly. >> In contrast to the 2024 term when stock prices soared dizzily, after these

midterm election results, Tesla's stock price has plummeted. So sir, these two moments show that the market can react very differently to the same relationship between business and politics. So, in your opinion, what does this reversal say about the level of dependence of tech corporations on policy? >> No, this is not dependence; it is simply a matter of public expectations. Because stock prices are determined by the market. People invest here expecting to make a profit; they don't invest because they

support any particular person. Right? It is all about judgment and expectation. In the beginning, it was different; people expected that what you were doing would bring significant benefits to the stock. And indeed, it was beneficial. For example, when SpaceX went public, those who invested in it made a profit, right ? But now, with this failure, people can clearly see that there are going to be many issues. Exactly, and the expectation behind buying those stocks is just like yours; you think the price will rise due to

that expectation so you can sell and make a profit. But now that you are holding those stocks and seeing the situation change, what does it mean? These companies will soon face a lot of trouble, and their prospects suggest that business won't be easy. Right? And there might even be some losses ahead. If you see that the stock is no longer profitable, you have to sell it, don't you? And that puts downward pressure on the stock, just like you said earlier about the initial 290 billion, right?

But this time, in just a day or two, nearly 500 billion, or 460-something billion dollars, was wiped out, right? So, why is that? It's because people see that it's clearly difficult and not as simple as it seems. And why is that? Because those companies and projects will surely be subject to a thorough review. What do we mean by "review"? First, was there any technical negligence involved? Second, was there anything that suggests a violation of business laws? Then there is the issue of conflict of

interest: was there any corruption or under-the-table collusion involved? Once all of that comes out, it gets very complicated. And that will undoubtedly be extremely difficult. And people might even find that some programs were just fabricated to secure government budget funding. And they might feel that these things were unnecessary to begin with. In the program, especially in this debt-ridden country, we must cut these things first . For instance, or whatever doesn't need to be cut. Something like that.

All those things might mean the revenue and profits that Elon Musk's companies hold may no longer be what they once were. Therefore, it is expected that people must sell, right? That's it. >> Yes, as you shared, this result leans more towards shareholders seeing the long-term profit outlook, rather than some claims that this is a punishment from shareholders toward Elon Musk, right? >> No, shareholders never punish anyone. As a shareholder, you only want to support your company to succeed. But this

punishment is a market punishment. Isn't it? It's because what you did before, we expected it to rise, but now we may not like it anymore; this is about expectations, but shareholders never punish. To understand it that way is wrong. Shareholders only wish for it to go up; if not, then I have to leave. That is just for their own interests, it's as simple as that. >> Yes, Doctor, when a company's stock rises or falls due to political expectations, those affected are not just the founder but also retail

shareholders, pension funds, and institutional investors. While Tesla needs capital for self-driving cars, robots, and AI, SpaceX continues to invest in rockets, satellites, and long-term projects. In your opinion, through which channels is the economic cost of a founder's deep involvement in politics transferred to the business? >> There are many. The first one is what? It's that you have become deeply involved in politics, like the typical example of Mr. Musk himself, where he spent too much time on the other side.

That means you are no longer focused on business expertise and technological issues. At that time, Tesla was also in a miserable state. Finally, the SEC and the board of directors are constantly calling on him , saying he needs to reconsider, because he is too preoccupied with other matters , leaving him no time; shareholders invested their money here to help you grow, yet you are busy doing that. That is one point. What is the second point for you guys? It’s because once you get involved in politics, it leads to the

second thing, which is what? It is what they call love and hate. Meaning what? Market polarization. That’s because, as I said, in business, you have to sell your products to everyone. But once you enter politics, it means half the market already hates you. So, I think this person is making a huge mistake; if you are an entrepreneur, you shouldn’t touch politics; you should just donate money like others do and keep it quiet. The right thing to do is to never make public statements. But instead, look at

what happens when he does that; what is the result? He runs into those issues, and people are smashing Tesla cars, right? And people are even starting movements to stop buying Tesla cars. And ultimately, that is where the decline began; not only that, he keeps participating in politics and even makes grand statements in other regions like Europe. Right? So in the end, it makes Europe— which was initially a place where people loved his cars because the American and European standards are similar and they

align with green goals—very fond of them . But eventually, they got tired of him too and started boycotting. So one must ask, are you doing politics or business ? You need to be clear about that. Therefore, from this perspective, Jen-Hsun Huang is the one who can be called the most savvy. That is why he has maintained relationships where no one hates him, even though he is very close to Mr. Donald Trump. It is because he has a very clear principle; he explicitly states that within his company, none of the

subordinates are allowed to discuss politics. Once you are at the company, you only talk about technology and related things; politics must be taken outside, and you are personally responsible for it, not within these walls. But this person is the boss, and he jumps in to give speeches and issue directives just like a president, so I have to say, this has become a problem. So, that is one thing, meaning that if you benefit, the people working under you in the company also benefit from the gain.

But if that disaster strikes—and it is surely a disaster because once you run a business and get involved in politics like that, the market becomes polarized with love and hate, and you will lose half of the market. As I keep saying, that is precisely the point where the shareholders and those who contribute will end up suffering losses. As for how to prevent those losses, that is something the shareholders have to figure out. And their methods of calculation all have to be put into mathematical models

to compute. They determine the risk index, and based on that, they know whether or not they should invest and how much to invest. And within what range to stay and when to pull out, that is a matter of managing safety and financial risk; those in finance are very good at such calculations. The problem is that he has to do the math himself. Yes. >> Yes, Doctor, following the Democratic Party's victory in the 2026 midterm elections, it is certain, as you said, that businesses with ties to the Trump

administration will be subpoenaed, right ? >> Certainly. >> So, in your opinion, if Elon Musk and corporate leaders have to testify, how great would the risks be to investor confidence, government contracts, and long-term projects? >> That is still impossible to predict, as it will depend on the outcome of the hearings. But one immediate consequence is that once you are in those hearings, you will naturally expend an enormous amount of energy. Both in terms of time and financial

matters. You have to pay for legal teams. Right? Then there is the preparation, having to go to court, and attending incredibly complex hearings. As for the result, if they see signs of trouble, the consequences could be huge . It is hard to tell, because expectations could cause people to walk away. However, in my view, I still believe that Elon Musk's technologies truly have real value. So it might just cause some damage, but as for a total collapse, I don't think that is likely. That is the point. The

question is just how much damage it will cause. Because that is only fair; since what he enjoyed before was also a political bubble, now he has to face the reality of the U.S.—it is a place of debate and dispute, acting like a pendulum. I have said this once before. If you swing too far to one side, there is a mechanism that forces you to swing back to restore balance. That is normal, and there is no problem with that. Therefore , everyone must understand that when playing in the U.S., you must realize

that if you benefit today, you must prepare your next move. If a problem arises tomorrow and it swings back, you need to know when to exit and when to jump back in. That is just normal. Because of that, the market does not become extreme. And the politics do not become extreme either. Why is that? Because it is a matter of competition. It is just like in the economy, my friend. If we talk about politics and economics, they are quite similar. Meaning, in an economy, if you have a monopoly in the market, why would you

need customers? You decide if they don't buy here, what they buy, who they buy from, and at what price. That is a monopoly. Politics is the same; if there is no competition, there is never a need for voters. But in America, everything must be competitive. That’s all there is to it. >> Ladies and gentlemen, American history is not short of billionaires who want to step out of the business world to seek political influence. Henry Ford once failed in his race for the Senate. Roosevelt won nearly 19%of the popular

vote but could not enter the White House . And Michael Bloomberg spent over 1 billion dollars on his presidential campaign but also failed to achieve his goal. However, history also records a special case: President Donald Trump. From a real estate mogul and reality TV star, Mr. Trump won two U.S. presidential elections, becoming the person holding the highest power in Washington. It is notable that billionaire Elon Musk is not only following the path many billionaires once chose but also has a special

relationship with President Trump himself. From close allies to public disagreements, could the story of these two billionaires show both the power and the limits of money in American politics ? Doctor, in 1918, billionaire Henry Ford , founder of Ford Motor, who revolutionized the auto industry with mass assembly lines, decided to run for the U.S. Senate in Michigan but lost to Truman Newberry. The thing is, billionaire Ford at that time had become one of the most famous businessmen in America, possessing a

vast fortune and deep influence on economic life. So why can a person who can change an entire industry not easily win over voters? >> Simply because those two fields are different. You are in industry and commerce, and by creating a new product that everyone needs, you can build a reputation in the market and as an entrepreneur. But politics is a completely different field. It must be you, a person with a spirit oriented toward the common good, broader than just your own market, and you must

have enough ideas to lead an entire country, not just a single industry or your own company. Those things are different, completely different. And if we look back at the case of Henry Ford, there is another technical issue, what is it? People considered him a bit arrogant, similar to Elon Musk, but Elon Musk only supports from the outside. While the other guy jumped right in. But because he wanted to run for office while still wanting to manage his company, he was told no, because that is a professional issue.

Do you understand? Once you are a professional in politics, you must be fully committed to that work. You cannot do otherwise. That is why, just like with Donald Trump, the laws require that if you want to serve, you must leave that field; you cannot hold another job . Other countries are like that; you cannot hold another profession, meaning remember this—once you enter the U.S. Congress, especially the Senate, you are 100%full-time professional. When I was in Australia, I even discovered that a Senator was expelled.

It was later discovered because he still held a teaching license. Meaning, remember that when you go in there, you must declare that you will cancel and cease all such certifications , never to work in them. Only when you leave can you return to that field. Because being in there means you might still be able to use those things to work, and that is just not allowed. So you have to leave. Meaning, remember that in Henry Ford's case, he went in and said I am still working here, I am still keeping that. That is very

difficult. So, people say that means you lack professionalism, because when serving the public, you must commit 100 %of your time; if you do something else , it will never work. They even say you seem a bit arrogant, thinking that with your prestige and power, you don't need to put in the effort to succeed, but the results show it's impossible because you aren't fully dedicated, and you must remember that the world of politics is completely different from the world of business. So if you don't understand and think

that just because I have prestige and money, I can enter politics and succeed immediately, that's not the case. In the U.S., that doesn't happen. Yes. >> Yes, so sir, if we place Henry Ford and Elon Musk, two automotive titans over a century apart, what similarities and differences do you see in their political ambitions? >> Well, in politics, they are similar in that both were considered the wealthiest people at their time. Second, they were both people who possessed the most advanced technologies

, right? And third, they were both famous and held significant prestige. So when they entered the political sphere, what was the difference? It's that Elon Musk supports from the outside, rather than being a direct participant like Henry Ford was. And secondly, what else? The two eras were also different, because in Henry Ford's time, there was no modern technology, mainly just print media and radio. So, although he owned those outlets and used them, he had complete control over what to report and when to release it.

Therefore, they say he had many silent periods and hiding places. But Elon Musk is in a different state, isn't he? Technology now allows for direct, real-time interaction. So everything is revealed instantly and spreads very quickly. So those two things are different. And the intentions, I actually think, may also be different, because Henry Ford didn't seem to set political goals for any reason other than wanting to show his contribution to the country. Whereas for Elon Musk, while that's

partly true, people also see personal motives. Meaning what? That he wants to support politics to benefit from it himself. That is the issue. With Ford, at that time, we didn't see many such signs, but with Elon Musk, those signs are much more apparent. That is exactly where the difference lies. >> As you just shared, Henry Ford not only owned a newspaper but also a radio station. But today we see that Elon Musk also owns a very powerful communication tool, which is the social network X. Is

that right? >> Yes, that's correct. In that regard, the two are similar. >> Yes. So, sir, from the printed newspapers of the early 20th century to social media in the digital age, how do you think the ability of billionaires to influence public opinion and politics has changed? >> Well, if you look at it, in Henry Ford's time, it was very powerful, but it was slow. It was gradual, and he could control all those streams. Whereas for Elon Musk, it is very fast and the scale

is huge, so he cannot completely control it, and why is that? Because people can interact, you see? Back then, you remember, if you submitted something and the newspaper didn't publish it, you were stuck. But with Elon Musk, you cannot ban anything, because if you ban me here, I will just go to another channel. And it gets on the internet, and people can even post it directly on his own platform and oppose him right there. You cannot control that kind of thing. So it is completely different, right? Yes.

>> So, in your opinion, how has an individual holding both massive wealth and a major media platform created new challenges for American society? >> I don’t think American society faces any major political challenges, because everything is balanced there. Because you have your rights, and the other side has their rights too. And they also have their own tools. It’s not as if you are the only one who can interact. Since it’s a society of competition, debate, litigation, and everything must

be brought out into the open. So if you have this tool, they have tools on the other side as well. That is why, remember that even though Elon Musk owns X, others have many media systems to broadcast and challenge him; how could he be the only one interacting? So to say there are challenges, I don’t think there are any. And in fact, if media technologies continue to develop, American society actually benefits greatly because social issues, the views of these figures, and their affairs become known to the public

immediately. Therefore, I think they benefit more than they are challenged by the developments in the media industry. There. Yes. >> Yes. Doctor, unlike the failure of billionaire Henry Ford, another successful case we must mention is Nelson Rockefeller, the grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller. He served as the Governor of New York for 15 years before becoming the Vice President of the United States from 1974 to 1977. Unlike Henry Ford, Rockefeller built a long-term political career, step

by step integrating into the power structure instead of just relying on his family's reputation. In your opinion, what conditions does billionaire Rockefeller's story show for a businessman or someone from the elite to succeed in American politics? >> You have to fully commit yourself to politics to be able to do it. Rockefeller had a wealthy and well-known family background, right? But he didn't just rely on that to sit on the sidelines and act arrogant like Henry Ford. He joined the people directly to

persuade and learn, and he served several terms as governor of that state , didn't he? What does that mean? It means he went through the process of entering politics thoroughly and properly, rather than just relying on his family's prestige and wealth to get ahead. That's how it is in the US; if you want to succeed, it’s like Kennedy, for example. Kennedy also rose up, and his family was very famous too, right? Kennedy's father was a very influential person. But even with that influence, if he

wanted his son to enter politics, he still had to study, join the party system, and get involved in political work. With Kennedy, I've even seen photos and footage from his campaign trails where he wasn't just sitting around at home. He was out on the streets, waiting for people to get off work, taking the subway, passing out flyers; even Obama did the same, going into the markets. Obama once criticized Harris, saying she needed to get out there. I even had to go down to markets in remote areas just to let people know who

I am, what I think about them, what I want to do for them, and convince them to vote for me—that’s how it’s done. You can't just sit there in a high position and boss people around; how would you ever win that way? It just doesn't happen. In the US, you can't win like that. Moreover, once you're in politics , there are even stricter requirements. Take Kennedy, for example. Later on, I found the history of it quite interesting. Even his marriage was under pressure from his family. And why is

that? It's because he wanted to embark on the path to becoming president, so first, when he was very young, he had to enter the Senate early because he was famous for becoming a Senator at such a young age. But what is one of the criteria to become a Senator? It is that you must have a family, a wife and children. Because if you are single, why is that? A Senator is someone who holds the power to decide the fate of the nation. For example, in war, whether to send troops or not, you must be a father, a

grandfather, a parent, or a child to understand the value of life, so that you can make your decisions; otherwise, you would never make it there. So he married her also under pressure from his family to strive for their family to become someone, which is why he married her, became the youngest Senator, and then gradually started on his way to becoming president. It’s not as simple as that. That’s why Donald Trump’s case is so special. He was in the party, right? But he wasn't active in politics. Yet he jumped

straight to becoming president. So this is a rather special case, that's all. >> Yes, Doctor, in 1992, a tech billionaire ran for US President as an independent candidate and won about 18.9%of the popular vote but not a single electoral vote. And nearly three decades later, Michael Bloomberg, the founder of the Bloomberg financial information empire and former Mayor of New York, spent over $ 1 billion on his 2020 presidential campaign but failed to secure any Democratic nomination. Two stories from

two different times, but they both show that huge financial resources don't necessarily guarantee a political victory, do they? So, in your opinion, what makes the US political system such a difficult playing field to conquer, even for wealthy, moneyed, and experienced billionaires? >> I mean, if we talk about it in terms of money >> So, looking at these guys, we know that money alone can't guarantee a victory. But in Mr. Perot's case, he was considered to have made a mistake,

meaning he was seen as an amateur who didn't follow the professional path of the U.S. political system. Although he was doing it, back then I was in Australia, and I found it very interesting. I was fascinated to see everyone asking, "Why is this guy supported so strongly?" And when the public was asked, reporters asked, "Why ?" They said, "Because we see that he really cares about our real issues, and the language he uses to communicate with us is very authentic, sincere, and

ordinary; it doesn't have the high-flown , literary tone of the others, so we find it easy to understand." So I thought, "Wow, this guy has really made a deep impact." But regardless, people say he was primarily a businessman. Because of that, he had a bit of an arrogant streak, which showed when running his campaign. Also, because he didn't join a party, he didn't have the support of professional political experts to help him understand the issues and ensure that tasks were

set up in a truly professional manner. So, I once watched and saw that when he was done, he turned to his advisor and asked, "What do we do next?" This meant that was a problem, indicating his vision at that time wasn't big enough, right? He didn't have enough comprehensive scope, his level of persuasion with the team below and the public wasn't high enough, and secondly, you must have a step-by-step plan to keep going continuously to make it for the long haul. And that is why you see many

people enter for a while, and once they see there is no prospect, they withdraw . It's because at first you feel like you have credibility and the public likes you, but once you get into deep debates on other issues, how could you have the necessary stature? At that point, it's clear that your breadth of thinking just isn't comprehensive enough. And if it's not comprehensive enough, you must have a team to train and help you so you can make your next moves. While I'm at it, let me give you the

example of Sarah Palin, remember her? When John McCain was running against Obama, the other side had the first prospective Black president. McCain was getting older and he wanted to bring about some change. So he told his assistant, "Find me a woman." Right. Someone young. So the team turned on their computers, looked at all the female Republicans, checked their backgrounds and ages, created a shortlist, then reviewed her articles and watched videos of her speeches and interviews, and they found

her to be talented, smart, and witty back in Alaska. That's it. And when they finally decided, she didn't even know yet. When she and her family got back from vacation, there was a whole team waiting at her house saying they wanted her to be the running mate, so she had to discuss with her family whether to take it. I mean, they have to train you on so many things, even how you walk. And regarding knowledge, she didn't even know where Afghanistan or Pakistan were , or what kind of countries they were.

So they had to teach her. Then they had to practice how to answer the questions that the media would inevitably ask. Oh my, it is absolutely intense. Meaning you have to be a professional for them to spend, because if you're an amateur jumping in just using some of your reputation to talk, then after a while when asked about other fields, how would you know? That is something that requires costs, requires experts to support. Even to the level that I tell you, the detail I really like is what? It was

when the Democratic convention began for Mr. John McCain to introduce that my running mate is this lady. The advisor drove her there and said she still had 30 seconds left to decide whether to get out or not. Before she opened the car door to step out because the reporters were already waiting out there. There. If you say no, then I will just drive away immediately. But if you say yes, then I tell you that you must remember a few things. First, what is it ? From today, from that moment on, you must never call me "sir" again. Because

before, she often called him "sir," or whatever, I forgot his name. But you can call me by my name in a normal way. That is the first thing. Never call me "sir. " Second, what is it? That you must never carry that bag again. Give that bag to me. Even if it's Hermès, Hammer, Hermès, throw all that stuff away. You are only allowed to walk empty-handed. That is to say what? It is that your stature is the stature of a Vice President in preparation, and these things are not just about relying on

carrying a Hermès bag in your hand, that's nonsense. Get rid of it all. That is, they train even things like that. Then she finally agreed to give up the bag and stepped out. Opened the door and officially went up for the introduction. That is to say, it is that professional. It's not like you can just suddenly jump right in and succeed. That doesn't happen. And yet, in the end, when it came to debates and things, because time was urgent. She didn't absorb it. Even though she was very talented. People

acknowledged she was very good at absorbing things. But when it came to the end, she still couldn't handle it, so later he had to apologize to Mr. John McCain, which was what? Well, perhaps my choice of her was a bit mistaken. He said no, it wasn't. That’s just how the times are. You shouldn’t blame yourself . See. I mean, to reach that level, it’s not just about having money or popular support and suddenly becoming president . That doesn't happen. That kind of thing is impossible in America. It is an

entire process. As for the second case, what was the other reason Mr. Perot lost ? It’s the American system, what they call the Electoral College. It’s not just about the popular vote, he got 19%, right? That’s a lot, it’s significant, not a small amount. But he didn't have a single elector representing him. Why is that? Because what is their system over there? For example, in this state, they have three electors. Even if he gets 19%of the vote, if someone else gets 19.1%, they take all five electors, and he gets nothing.

Without that kind of professional organization, how could he win any electors? So, even though many ordinary people loved him, he didn't have a single elector. What does an elector mean? It’s the person who represents you; you could run and say, "Vote for me so I can vote for Mr. Perot," right? So if Mr. Perot wins the highest number of votes, those five electors belong to him, and as one of those five, you would go vote for Mr. Perot. Regarding this part, I should explain that I also found it very interesting:

is there such a thing as an elector not voting for the person they promised their voters? They say yes. In the more than 200-year history of the US, it has happened about 10 times. But the most recent time was over a hundred years ago. They say that anyone who does that complicates their entire reputation, as their future life will be ruined because people really hate things like that. So, fundamentally, that never happens; there is never a case where someone promises to vote for me, then I go to

vote for Mr. Perot, and in the end, I vote for someone else. That never happens. I’m just mentioning that in passing, but that is why Mr. Perot lost . It’s because he—the American system doesn’t allow it, as they say this two-party system is a system that goes through two parties, right? It’s two guys fighting, fighting, fighting round after round. Then you choose two guys to go into the final round, and the people will decide which one wins. The system is so tight that they say it sucks all the ideas and resources into

this area. So what is Mr. Perot then? He is the third-party candidate. I don’t belong to any party. So I just appeal to the people, but because you don’t follow a party system , as I said, the ideas have already been sucked up, so if you propose an idea, you might end up sounding like this side or that side. And the other side is professional and has a system in place, so how could you possibly win? So that is just how the system works. In short, if you want to participate, what does that mean? It’s like a boxing

competition system, for example. If you participate, you have to follow their rules. You have to join this association or that one, fight through the first and second rounds, then reach the final to compete. It follows the system’s rules, so how can you just suddenly jump in and say, "I want to jump in and start punching right here to win the championship"? It’s very difficult. How can you go in that direction? So you have to understand how the system operates; Mr. Perot was an outsider, or

he didn’t understand that the system is what people call "winner-takes-all." Winner-takes-all, what does that actually mean? It refers to the electoral votes. You only need one more vote to secure all the electoral votes, and the other person loses everything. So that is the second point. As for the Mr. Bloomberg you mentioned, that is a different case. Mr. Bloomberg was the one who spent the most money. Compared to things supporting Trump, Bloomberg alone spent one billion dollars. But this man also made a mistake, what

was it? He thought he controlled the media, and at that time, Bloomberg was formidable. And he thought that just broadcasting messages would be enough. So he skipped many conferences and going down to meet voters in the states below . He only focused on a few key states and wanted to play only on Super Tuesday—I remember that day being a very important debate within the party—but he did not expect that at that moment, Ms. Warren ...Ms. Warren, who is still active now, is sharp. She brought up issues regarding his

business, his so-called gender relations , and his authoritarian management style at Bloomberg. People say that in less than 60 seconds , she practically knocked him out. So what does that mean? A lot of money was spent. But because you lacked connection, and you thought that money, prestige, and controlling the media would allow you to dominate. In the end, it didn't work. Why is that ? Because I return to your principle regarding debate and argument. Do not think that when you debate, others won't point out your weaknesses,

where you don't align with the ethics and credibility that the public needs in a political representative; in the end, you still lose, that's it. It's not just about relying on money and fame to succeed and get ahead. Besides, ah >> Yes, so attorney, looking at the stories of billionaires entering American politics, how do you relate that to the story of President Donald Trump? Coming from a real estate billionaire background, Mr. Trump defeated very strong candidates and entered the White

House twice, becoming the 47th President of the United States in 2024. So, in your opinion, why is it that while many billionaires fail despite spending huge amounts of money, billionaire Donald Trump was able to transform his business reputation into a political movement strong enough to bring him back to the White House twice? >> That is very much a matter of the times . The times are one thing. What is called his talent for discourse and imagery is the second. And the third is that he himself is also

very much involved with the media. Therefore, people already knew him, just like President Reagan back in the day, who was a person from the film industry and was also very famous and well-known . So that makes it very easy for him. And at the same time, what else? The times and his ideas hit the mark of those times, which is why he was able to establish it. Meaning that those times, if we talk about Mr. Trump's case, it is true that the first time we mentioned, and then the next time, it was a continuation.

Regarding his first time, I honestly did not think he would win. There it is. And why? Because they said this guy was a businessman, but looking at his business record, it didn't seem very impressive at all. He failed six times, and the wealth he had was all money left behind by his father. And his personality was complained about a lot by his own family and relatives. So how was it possible that he ended up winning? So why is that? It's because ultimately we realize it was due to the times, because at that

time, remember, he was the person who could be said to have brought a spirit that voiced the greatest frustrations of the American people. If we look back now, I’ve watched footage from 1980—that is, the Rust Belt era. Because before the 70s and 80s, the U.S. was considered a powerhouse in economics and technology; every product was synonymous with America. That’s why they call it the Rust Belt— the Midwest and the Northeast regions, home to metallurgy and steel, right? Mining, automobiles—that was why the

whole world looked at America as the most powerful nation. Then, in 1980, the Reagan era began, with his push to promote free enterprise . He opened up the global market, and that’s when the U.S.—do you remember what happened? Japanese cars, right? Started flooding in. European cars followed. That led to the 1985 Plaza Accord, because they couldn't take it anymore and started losing jobs. Then with steel, look at us now with the Nippon Steel program—they’re even buying up U.S. companies. Back then, it was so grand, but then

they suffered losses, neglected it, and what happened next? After 1980, what about 1991? The Eastern Bloc collapsed, and the whole world began entering globalization. Then in 2000, China joined the global market, pulling all the technology, jobs , and machinery out of the U.S., leaving those areas desolate. It wasn’t until Donald Trump said that we’d be finished if we didn't bring it all back—who was that guy again? That adviser of Trump’s? He said that, and that’s what made everyone turn around and support Trump.

So, the Republican Party realized that by targeting these voters and invoking that spirit, while also addressing the dangers the U.S. saw from China, it resonated. They had to turn it around, and so, Trump hit exactly that point. So, by using exactly that kind of strategy, people ultimately voted him into office. Well, in reality, his first term experience wasn't anything spectacular because he only had two years; he had barely done a few things before Covid hit. Then, after sitting idle for two years during Covid, he

didn't accomplish much, and he didn't handle the pandemic very well either. People gradually started to see the issues, and later he became infamous for the January 6th incident, so people began to abandon him, but then he made a comeback. Why did he win this second time? The interesting thing about this second time is that after the January 6th incident, many donors swore that from then on, they would never spend money to support Trump again. Yet, in the end, what was the reason later on? It is because, first of all, I

see that there are some issues where the Biden administration itself had some delays. For example, the frustration regarding the border issue. Clearly, I see that many newspapers and media outlets brought it up a lot, but almost nothing was done about it. He sent Ms. Harris there for a visit, she went on a field trip and came back without really doing anything, so that became a problem . Then, with China, he did handle things better, but at that time, Trump kept clinging to the idea that it still

wasn't strong enough. And so, when he returned, along with other issues like the border and trade, right? With all these countries, America is being taken advantage of, but then there's also the tech sector later showing support for him, so for the upcoming election, people call it using "tribal politics." That is to say, what does "tribal politics" mean? In the past, they said that tribes lived separately, but if there was an external threat—for example , having to repair a levee or fend off

an outside group—they would unite to get the job done, and then return to their own homes; that is what is called tribal politics. And now, tech groups are all joining in, saying "vote for me, and I will let you do whatever you want" in finance, technology, space, and so on. These guys, along with Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, and Amazon's Bezos, all jumped in to support him, and in the end, he succeeded. But technically speaking, I can say that in his first victory, besides the fact that he hit the nail on the head

regarding the "Rust Belt" to restore pride to America, what was the other issue? I believe that Mrs. Clinton also made mistakes early on. The mistake in the sense that she was leading by a very, very wide margin at first, but then she collapsed. And that collapse is something I see as a case study. People say that Clinton's advisors told her—at a time when Mr. Clinton had just had heart surgery and was still weak—they convinced her not to get into a one-on-one argument with Donald Trump, because Trump was very

sharp-tongued back then, and it was better to build a strategic economic platform. He said that was correct. At the time, I felt very worried because I thought, since she was preparing to run , she had to present an economic program in the final stages of the campaign. No presidential candidate has ever run for office without an economic program. Yet , Mrs. Clinton did not have one. And back then, we remember it took so much effort to convince Bernie Sanders to drop out of the campaign, because why

was Bernie Sanders supported? Why did he have so much support from the Democratic base? It was because he was the one who actually presented an economic program. Which Mrs. Clinton lacked. I said, now that he agreed to withdraw, if you introduce those things and adapt them, they would be easily accepted, but it wasn't done. That was the mistake. While Donald Trump put forward what slogan? That's it, right? So that is the biggest idea. The second idea is how to make America great again. Meaning, only worry about America and

forget about the rest. There. What is the third layer? How to implement it. Then the third layer going down to implementation, what is it? It's ditching all those TPP treaties and things; just come here and work. I mean, technically, it's extremely clever, having three layers of ideas leading to practical implementation; the public knows where he is leading them and how to achieve it. While Ms. Clinton only had one slogan, that I am still... Meaning, together we are stronger. But in short, stronger in what way? Who is

stronger and how to be stronger, she didn't like to talk about. Then that's a failure. That's why he said right from the start that by the end, we knew they were headed in the wrong direction, so they would lose. That is why the first win happened like that. Now for the second time, there are the Biden administration's errors, and what's called tribal politics. And so that helps him return to the White House. These two elections, we can see that. And what does that mean? He is a person

many call an outsider, but not entirely . He is a businessman, but he has been involved in politics since the 80s; after he went to Russia to work, he came back and started discussing political issues regarding NATO and US policy a lot. So he has had a process; to call him a complete outsider is not quite right, calling him an amateur would be more accurate. He has played politics, but looks like an amateur rather than a complete outsider. But with the current situation and all those tactics, he ultimately achieved

victory. That is the explanation, which is why it wasn't just relying entirely on money; he didn't spend much of his own money, just a little. That, and his reputation, followed that trajectory. So, it can be said that the times led to Donald Trump, combined with his own personal factors, which resulted in this phenomenon. >> Yes. After stepping into the White House , President Donald Trump was no longer just an influential businessman in politics, but became the one directly deciding policies with far-reaching

impacts on the US and global economy, right? From tax cuts in his first term, imposing tariffs on imports, and promoting domestic production to protectionist policies and competition with China, Mr. Trump turned many of his economic views into national policy. In your opinion, does a businessman stepping into the position of President create a fundamental difference in the mindset of managing the economy? >> Yes. Because he calculates based on money, and the way he stated it clearly was that he wanted to manage the country

like his own company, meaning he only focused on money. Right? However, that is a mistake; in my view, it is precisely because of that approach of his that he is causing the chaos we see now. Why is that? Because what does a company mean? It is entirely your own authority, and you depend on your own leverage to negotiate and interact. Assuming the US is strong and his company is wealthy, he uses intimidation, price setting, and constant haggling. But the problem is that managing a country cannot be done

like that. Yet he applied that method, so now the whole US and the world are very chaotic because the US system's strength has always relied on its predictability. What does that mean? It means you have to be very professional, because people say the U.S. President's word is golden , and that's exactly why. Meaning when you speak on something or implement a policy, there are discussions, debates, right? Then you reach a conclusion, and once concluded, you affirm the action, issue the policy, and send it to

Congress for review and further debate. The whole world knows, and when you say something, it is meant to be precise. Instead, he acts like it's his private company, saying one thing today and something else tomorrow, which causes chaos. And that means, well, in a small company of your own, you might get away with that. There, you can change prices as you please. But at a global level, with such a massive economy and the standing of the world, you have to steer things gradually so people can keep up. Instead

, people are left in the dark; you keep pivoting like this, how is anything supposed to work? So, that is exactly the problem. As for the work brought back to achieve the growth we see today , that isn't entirely his doing; if we are being fair, the credit belongs to the Biden era. Exactly. Because Biden was the one who started bringing jobs and technology home, and had a $ 1.7 trillion program to upgrade education, roads, and telecommunications infrastructure to boost U.S. economic competitiveness, which is why people

started pouring back into the U.S. to work. He was simply the one who took over next. Right. That is where the issue lies, and it cannot be attributed entirely to his efforts. That’s right, isn’t it? But because of his methods, are there achievements today? Yes, but not as much as claimed; the main credit follows the momentum from the Biden administration. And what is he doing for the U.S. and the world today? It is very chaotic. What is it? People just can't know how he might act. No one can calculate that.

And in business, as in global politics, that is what people fear most. Because they say they don't know what tomorrow will bring. But if it's difficult or easy or whatever, it has to be predictable so that people can control the situation. This, however, is the difficult part. Yes. >> Dr., the relationship between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk once created high expectations after the 2024 election. But by June 2025, the two had publicly expressed disagreements over tax and spending bills. In your

opinion, what do the ups and downs in the relationship between billionaire Elon Musk and President Trump reveal about the limits of plutocratic power? >> Both of them are tycoons, but one has become a politician, sitting firmly in the political seat, right? While the other is purely a tycoon. But he mistakenly thought that he had the right to help people, support them, and that they would do as he asked; that is exactly his mistake. His limit is that he must understand that even if they are friends, once that

person becomes President, it is different. But Elon Musk seems to have realized that a bit too late. So he kept acting until he went too far , and Donald Trump found it unacceptable , right? And another thing is what? Regarding Mr. Trump, you cannot blame Mr. Trump for this. Mr. Trump stated clearly from the very beginning that he said he didn't like electric cars. Right ? So when he cut the tax credit, the other man felt like he was being played back, and that's why it's frustrating.

There. And then later, he turned to oppose the so-called plan. Build, that is, he said. So he killed the bill. That's when the two started to clash because of all those things. I think this is because he didn't understand that the boundary is that he is Even if you are a friend or a supporter , once you are President, you must maintain a certain distance. But I think Elon Musk, looking at his whole style, treats the White House as if it were a place where he can do whatever he wants —carrying kids, dressing casually,

wearing hats, and all sorts of things. I mean, it lacks decorum; that kind of behavior just isn't right. And this frustration, there’s definitely a problem there. It might be fine outside . He eventually realizes that, but since they are both businessmen, they still need each other in certain cases, feeling obligated to support one another , so they keep coming back together for the sake of their own interests. Exactly . >> Ladies and gentlemen, while the past has shown that President Donald Trump is an

example of a businessman who successfully entered the White House, the story of billionaire Elon Musk presents a different paradox. He does not hold presidential power, but his companies possess technology that the U.S. government needs. NASA needs launch and transport services, the military needs satellites and communications, while businesses need contracts, permits , and favorable regulations. As the Democratic Party prepares to take over congressional oversight, this two-way dependency becomes a focal point;

specifically, the controversy over Starlink in Ukraine shows how a private provider's decision can impact military operations. So, how should corporate power be limited? Yes, Doctor, SpaceX is a private company that has become a key partner for NASA in transporting astronauts, launching satellites, and many space programs. The company is also involved in projects related to U.S. national security. Historically, we have seen that defense contractors like Boeing or Lockheed Martin also have long-standing

relationships with the government. So, in your opinion, what makes the tech business model controlled by Elon Musk different, and what risks can state dependency on a few strategic suppliers create? >> So, if we were to put it into words, what does it mean? The technological progress made by Elon Musk's own company is now directly targeting the very foundations of America's national defense and security . The issue here, and I must reiterate this, is that in the past, such things were always initiated by the state, with

companies only benefiting later because it was difficult and costly. But now, it's the complete opposite. Why is that ? Why, indeed? The world has grown much larger. If you have an invention, you can make a huge profit, and once you have the money, you can develop things yourself without needing the government . So now, it has returned to the reverse state, where the government is. Well, if you guys can do it, in the U.S., they just hire you; the government just hires you directly. So, people say, look at

NASA—back then, who else could do those things but NASA? But now, NASA realizes this guy can do it, so they just hire him, and people ask, "What is NASA actually doing then?" It's become almost just an agency that coordinates government programs, while private companies do the work; they hired private firms before, too. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Grumman, and even Rolls-Royce for engines—that's always been their hiring mechanism, but now, even for basic research programs, NASA can't do them alone. In the end,

why is this guy able to pull it off? Because the company's scale is so massive, he mobilizes resources from the entire market. So that means this is how things are being done now. The question is, in the past, the state wasn't really dependent on these companies; it followed a model where the state held competitive bids among them. And even then, only a few suppliers had the capability to actually win those contracts. But now, is Elon Musk dominating everything on his own? It is true that, as of now, that is exactly

what's happening. Because of this, some people are suspicious, wondering if they are just paying each other back for their mutual support in politics? Right? That is a matter people are still raising. That question cannot be answered yet; we have to wait and see what the upcoming interrogations and hearings reveal. However, it is clear that if it is the American state, they still hold the power of the state. You are working because I commissioned you; it is a government order, not a dependency where you are just helping

out. Therefore, you shouldn't overstep. But we only see that in this specific case, Elon Musk seems to have power on par with the president. Take the Starlink issue in Ukraine, for example; he can act on such matters, and people clearly see it as a problem. But why? Because in reality, within this system, both Elon Musk and Donald Trump share the same view, which is what? They don't like Ukraine very much. They only provide it because now there is money, because Poland is paying, so they still hold onto this, and I

consider their actions unreasonable. Therefore, this very matter will be subject to hearings because people argue that even if you are a private company, the government is the one purchasing, the government, not Donald Trump, mind you. And if the government buys it, that means taxpayers 'money, which means the right to operate belongs to the government, so how can you intervene and say you will cut off Starlink for a U.S. national security partner? So, the U.S. currently has a blurred line between individual interests and

national issues. Because technology issues are complex, especially when the president himself holds similar views on external affairs and shares political alignment with Elon Musk, it leads to these situations; but I think they will have to be careful in the near future because after this election, oversight committees will set operational rules, and you simply cannot violate them. You could even have your contract terminated. Or, if you aren't careful, they might take a heavy-handed approach, meaning

you lose your executive power, or face severe penalties through your contracts . And that would mean hitting your wallet and your shareholdings directly. And if you’re not careful, you could even be nationalized if necessary. In necessary cases, they can simply cite their authority. For instance, what if you encounter a president who doesn't like how you operate? Simply put, they will cite national security as an issue that cannot be left in the hands of a single company. I am hiring you; that

doesn't mean you have any executive rights here. They could seize it and buy you out, and things would get complicated very quickly. So Elon Musk should understand that there are limits, much like the role he plays with the president, right? Initially, he was just a supporter. If you are nobody, you can carry on as usual. But once you are president, you must be careful, keep your distance; acting as if you are equals becomes a problem. Now, this Mr. Elon Musk may be facing some issues. His perspective has

gone a bit too far; he doesn't draw a line between himself and others, which is why he is facing such business troubles. Yes. >> Yes, as the Doctor shared, after the Starlink incident in Ukraine, clearly the US government will have to establish the necessity of stricter regulations so that critical wartime communication systems don't depend too much on one individual's decisions, right? >> That is certainly the case. They will have to do exactly that. And that is just on the outside. What about within

the country now? Now people are asking, if you just let this slide without any consequences, will he keep using this leverage to pressure the government for whatever he wants in the future? That shouldn't be allowed to happen. The United States will not accept that. So I think Elon Musk should understand the situation and scale back—he should stay away from political issues, even when it comes to Europe. Regarding Starlink, I believe sooner or later he will face the consequences, as Europe now realizes that it cannot rely

on the U.S. Right? Because of him, they feel they cannot trust the U.S., and they also see that even the U.S. government cannot control him, so why would Europe want to depend on that? That is why they are developing systems to replace Starlink. And I believe Europe is already working on their own development programs. I think they will develop such systems sooner or later. And if they do, what then? He will lose a massive market. He must understand the damage that would cause. That is the real issue. How could

he sell his products to Europe then? Exactly. >> Well, Doctor, during the time billionaire Elon Musk is involved in DOGE to cut spending and reform the U.S. government apparatus, a controversial issue has arisen: his companies, especially SpaceX, are receiving multi-billion dollar contracts from the federal and state governments. This raises concerns that Musk might participate in reforming agencies that oversee his own businesses, while simultaneously having business interests tied to those same agencies. So, in your

opinion, does a billionaire simultaneously participating in government operations and owning corporations with major business ties to the state pose a risk of cronyism? >> Certainly, that is where the conflict of interest lies. So now, you are the person acting on behalf of the president to reform companies and government agencies that are responsible for regulating you. Then isn't that practically the same as attacking them? You attack them, and then you go on to win government contracts while no one regulates you; so

what kind of issue is that? I am certain this will be discussed very thoroughly, which is why Senator Cortez recently said they should prepare their arguments, as we certainly won't let this slide. And to be blunt, I think the Democratic Party is currently drawing up a very aggressive list of issues so that, in the end, they will demand these individuals testify. Because now they have the power in their hands. Why is that? It is because these men have full authority since after Mr. Trump took

office, the influence over both houses rests in the hands of the Republican Party. And the two leaders of those two houses for the Republicans, you can see that Mike Johnson and John Thune barely have any role at all. They are almost just sitting there waiting to see what Mr. Trump tells them to do, and that's it. They don't have a single thing of their own. So, while these two men have been free to do whatever they want, I think that time has now passed. And it is certain that with the

Democratic Party now holding the two houses, they have the executive oversight power to force you to come in and explain yourself. And at that point, if there are any issues that cross the line into legal trouble. Then it will be very complicated, not simple at all, and they will not let it go. >> So, in your opinion, does the risk of tighter oversight, policy changes, or a review of government contracts pose a challenge to the tech ambitions of billionaire Elon Musk? >> Difficulties will certainly arise; that

is for sure. According to my assessment and outlook, he will not be able to have it as easy as he did before. So, at the very least, what is it? It’s that you also lose a lot of energy and incur many costs, right? And contract adjustments might have to be reduced. You might be very ambitious, but people say this isn't needed for the nation, so why is the government spending money on this program? Well, it's just like you. You get in, burn through it, and say the Voice of America programs are wasteful,

so you just cut them, right? Meanwhile, one must understand that this is exactly where I start to see that these people have a problem, as they lack an understanding of political issues. People call that soft power. Regarding this radio station, how much money can actually be saved by cutting it? Just over 100 million dollars a year. Meanwhile, that place is the mouthpiece for everything, supporting the fact that whenever American companies go anywhere , they are grand and hold a position that every country respects.

Why is that? That is your soft power, isn't it? It’s that you have to provide aid. That’s how U.S. aid works; wherever you go, if people are in need, you have to visit them and help them with a little something, right? Then through radio, you can also have cultural exchanges and broadcast news so people understand your country. Only then, when you arrive in a country where you previously had nothing, can you demand rights for your companies; otherwise, who would grant them to you? That’s why I say these people don't

understand political issues. And like this, things simply cannot be done. And because of that, now look, all your friends are gone. Everyone is suspicious and dislikes you because these guys are at fault for thinking that the money spent is a waste , when it is not. It is not a waste. >> Ladies and gentlemen, from the case of billionaire Elon Musk, the story raised is not just for one individual or one presidential term. The U.S. once thrived thanks to its entrepreneurial spirit and global corporations, but it also had to

use antitrust laws to rein in economic empires that had grown too large. Now, as AI, data, satellites, and digital infrastructure become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few firms , the old problem has returned in a new form. Is the U.S. market economy model changing, and where is the line between encouraging innovation and controlling private power? Yes, Doctor, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of Standard Oil and industrial conglomerates forced the U.S. to set limits on monopolies. In 1911, Standard

Oil was broken up by a Supreme Court ruling, and in 1984, AT&T was restructured following an antitrust process. But today, a company's competitive advantage and technology are not just factories or pipelines; we now see data, ecosystems, and network effects as well. In your opinion, are traditional antitrust tools still relevant? >> This has become a matter of much debate right now. Personally, I think they are no longer suitable. Because the context of the types of goods involved is

completely different. For goods like those in the past—Standard Oil, for instance—people thought monopoly was easy to prove because you were selling things like chairs, which are very tangible items. Right? You could collude or acquire other companies until everything became yours , and then you alone could monopolistically set the price. That was very straightforward. But now, in this industry, this field, it is very difficult to define what a monopoly is. For example, they say that selling oil

or chairs in the past serves as a model for this. You could just say that if competitors threaten you, you buy them out. That was easy. And now, they are trying to apply those same arguments to punish Meta. And he has a point, because he argues that in other cases, when you buy a furniture company, for example, there is already an existing competitive issue, a market, and a reputation, so if you want to eliminate that and take it over, it's clear. But here, I'm just buying a startup. There's no market yet, no reputation

built. Right? But the problem is, one could argue that you saw this startup would compete with you if it rose, but that is not yet a strong enough argument to put into law. That is exactly what makes it difficult to apply to this specific case. And that is precisely why it’s so hard to defeat these big guys. The second point is that the market today is different; previously, someone might have sold in this region or that segment, but this network is global—how can you split it up? You can't tell Zuckerberg that he can

only release his model in this region and not in another state, you just can't . Because it’s global now, so how would you even know how to break it apart? This is the technical headache currently facing antitrust legislation. The U.S. government is struggling to handle antitrust issues using traditional arguments, so there definitely needs to be a modernization and redefinition of monopoly for the digital and data economy era. Otherwise, the old methods simply won't work anymore. >> Yes, Doctor, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme

Court issued a historic ruling that paved the way for corporations and organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent election campaigning. This decision has profoundly changed how money influences U.S. politics. And for this year's midterm elections, billionaire Elon Musk spent at least 445 million dollars on federal political activities through political campaign and funding organizations. In your opinion, when a billionaire can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, voter mobilization, and

backing their chosen politicians, is the voice of the super-rich increasingly drowning out the voices of ordinary voters? >> Actually, it isn't. Many people think that way, but when I look at it, I say that's not the case. You see, one must understand that before 2010, the regulations were very clear, which were what? That whatever amount you contributed had to be transparent. Right? And even if your company was involved, I would say if it wasn't transparent, they wouldn't even dare to

accept the money. That was very clear. And after you were allowed to participate in that space, the law stated that when you run for office, you can use your own money, like Mr. Perot did, for example. When the election is over, what I found very interesting in the law is what? If you secure 5%of the total votes from the electorate, what does that mean? It means you have the right to claim back some money from the national election fund, you have the right to demand it there. I have gained enough public credibility

, so you must pay me back some money for this. But if you fall below that, you lose it all. For instance, if you spend hundreds of millions of dollars, you could lose it all and not get a single cent back. But if you get over 5%, you can claim it back. But that is a different matter. Now, let's return to our original discussion, which is what? So, by the year 2010, I believe that this could be a motivation of a nature that is what? Commercializing the election process. And so, what happens is? Well, you don't

need anything else; you just establish what is called a super PAC—let's just call it a super PAC for short. Which means campaign activities translate to what? They all pour money in there and use it to campaign in their own way. And what does that mean? It means you don't need to stay anonymous, ah, you don't need to name yourself. In short, it all goes through that. And that entity supports you, without having a specific list of who is involved. So you can throw money at this side or

that side as you wish. But there is no need to list the names. That’s what starts making elections expensive and costly like that, but the question is, who are the ultra-rich? The ultra-rich still ultimately depend on the votes of the people. That is the first thing. The second thing is, you have the ultra-rich on this side, and there are also ultra-rich on the other side. It’s not like all the ultra-rich are on your side. Right, so people say that in the end, there is an interesting point. The

ultra-rich in the US are also competing against each other. So, once there is competition, that is fine. Therefore, no single person can claim they have total control. That’s all. So, in my view, because ultimately, the ultra-rich, even if they spend money, still have to get people's votes to succeed. So there is no issue saying the ultra-rich will eventually dominate the government while the people below have none. Not true. The people remain the foundation, that is where it lies. Having more money and power just makes

it easier to campaign and reach out to the people, because before, if your budget was limited, you might not reach those far-off states. Or you wouldn't go to those sparsely populated areas. But if your budget is strong enough, you start gathering votes there. Obama even said so. He said I had to watch him criticize Hillary, telling her she had to get out more. And look, I previously had to be in his campaign team to clearly identify on which days those remote areas held their markets. That way, we could go there and meet

with the people. Only then could we start gathering votes, which requires money, doesn't it? So this is precisely what helps facilitate the formation of those things on a large scale. Therefore, I think it is a good initiative, but the only question is: what about national security now? Previously, how would we know if this guy had a background in organized crime ? Or what if a hostile party liked this candidate and wanted to campaign for him ? So now they say there will have to be some reforms, meaning they will still

allow those donors to contribute, but they must have a clear identity to be recognized. That is all. And there is also no limit on the amount of money. The interesting point lies in that; it seems to me like this is a process of commercializing elections. Meaning, elections are also just a commercial process to generate money. It is very interesting. >> Yes, Doctor, we see a paradox here where American tech giants are often viewed as symbols of the free market economy and competition. But nowadays, many

businesses are significantly dependent on government contracts, public research investment, tax incentives, or industrial policies. Meanwhile, Washington is increasingly viewing AI, semiconductors, aerospace, and digital infrastructure as strategic sectors. So , in your opinion, is the U.S. shifting from a model where the state primarily creates an environment for business competition to a model where the government and tech giants are more deeply entwined in shaping the economy? >> As I mentioned earlier, due to the China

issue, the government is now starting to have a tendency to......get involved and interfere in those sectors, primarily high-tech. It is to maintain that pioneering edge. And I think this trend could last for several decades. So what does that mean ? It means that, in this current context, it's more accurate to call it a mutual dependency rather than saying the U.S. government is dependent on these companies. You see, it’s because these companies are still surplus-driven. You build yourself up from the ground, become

wealthy, and once you meet the standards , the government signs a contract with you. And once the government signs with you, they have ways to protect you and maintain your lead, because if it weren't for geopolitical competition with rivals like China, the U.S. government certainly wouldn't do that; they would just set the stage and let you compete on your own. But returning to the issue, because of the current geopolitical context, stock market investors themselves are saying that when they input data into their

calculation models, things are a bit chaotic and not as straightforward or predictable as before because of that factor. Normally, this company might be nothing at all. But if the government decides it's important and steps in, your prospects immediately skyrocket. This means you are guaranteed never to lose money and you'll surely make a profit, so how can others calculate it when, by market standards, this company might be worth nothing? But we have to accept it ; there's nothing else we can do, yes.

>> Yes, Doctor, over a century ago, the oil , steel, and automotive tycoons contributed to building American industrial power. But the U.S. itself also had to create institutions to limit their power, didn't it? Today, billionaire Elon Musk and other tech billionaires are controlling sectors directly related to information infrastructure, AI, space, and national competitiveness. So, in your opinion, based on the lessons from billionaires, is the U.S. entering a new phase in the relationship between the ultra-wealthy

and the state? And in the next 10 years, what will determine whether tech billionaires become a driving force for innovation or a challenge to the U.S. economic model itself? >> In other words, can we say that the U.S. is currently entering a period that is, well, what? It is clear regarding that relationship that, due to geopolitical influence, the country needs these companies and must protect them—that is correct. And so, clearly, these companies hold a certain position relative to the state,

and people are worried that they might exert control. And that is the difficult part. And currently, that control is happening, like in the case of Starlink and other things involving Elon Musk; they are already exerting a lot of influence, aren't they? This brings us back to the time of President Eisenhower; at the end of the 60s, before he left the White House, he warned: "Be careful," because if the military-industrial complex—the arms dealers—exerts too much influence, the country will be in great danger.

If arms dealers can dictate policy, they will lead the country into endless wars , right? But fortunately, the U.S. was warned, and the American political system is based on the foundation of competition and the overall interest. That is why they were able to eliminate that influence. So now, a new problem is emerging, which is what? It is the appearance of a phenomenon driven again by geopolitical competition. That is why these tech moguls have acquired that role. And once they have that role, if

we are not careful, might they steer the national system in directions purely focused on tech development while potentially ignoring practical issues? And that is exactly what is happening now. It is happening. AI is developing very rapidly, but the rest of the economy has yet to see any benefits; in fact, people are losing their jobs and falling even further behind. That is exactly the issue, so now people will have to figure out how to address this problem. I think that sooner or later, with an

election like this, it will certainly create momentum to stop the tech sector from dominating the government and American politics. That is for certain. Yes. And what does that approach mean? It means we must understand whether what you are doing is causing harm or damage to technological progress. I think that is when the U.S. will have to calculate its next steps. In other words, you shouldn't overreach , but conversely, the government shouldn't overreach either to the point of hindering technological development.

That is a national matter. Therefore, for example, if I speak about the case of re-evaluating, what should the government do now? Right. The government might eventually have to expropriate or purchase something. People say that in cases like platforms , the government might have to step in and pay to acquire them, and for what purpose? To allow others to compete at the lower level. Because if it remains private, I will definitely not allow you all to come in and compete. This is something Europe is

considering, and it is also a point of contention with the U.S. Europe says that if you enter this market, you must follow our rules; if you come in and only favor U.S. companies operating on your platform while suppressing European firms, will we just be left to die? Exactly. So now it has become a real issue. The U.S. might now also have to examine this problem. Meaning what? Could it be that if these platforms cannot be regulated, the government might have to nationalize them? That, however, hasn't been considered yet; we

will have to wait and see. But there is clearly a struggle going on regarding the fact that corporations are exerting excessive influence over politics and the government. So now, could this election restore a certain order? That the government will reconsider how to prevent that situation , but without overreacting to the point of hindering technological development. That is the real issue. Yes. >> Ladies and gentlemen, in 2024, President Donald Trump's victory triggered a sharp rise in Tesla's stock and created high

expectations for Elon Musk's businesses . But U.S. politics can always shift after the 2026 midterm elections; the risk of DOGE hearings, government contracts, and controversies like Starlink in Ukraine show that economic power is not beyond institutional oversight. From Henry Ford and Rockefeller to President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, history poses a question that never grows old. How can the creativity of entrepreneurs serve the national interest without turning public power into a private advantage for the

few? Once again, I would like to thank Dr. Bui Ngoc Son for joining our conversation today and providing such deep, comprehensive, and candid analysis and perspectives. >> Yes. My pleasure. >> Thank you all for watching. Don't forget to subscribe to the channel so you don't miss any of our in-depth commentary programs. And now, goodbye and see you again.

thank

thank