A collection of opinionated commentaries on culture, politics and religion compiled predominantly from an American viewpoint but tempered by a global vision. My Armwood Opinion Youtube Channel @ YouTube I have a Jazz Blog @ Jazz
and a Technology Blog @ Technology. I have a Human Rights Blog @ Law
“President Trump and Republicans are using the threat of communism as a campaign strategy against Democrats, particularly targeting those associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. This tactic, reminiscent of the Second Red Scare, is seen as out of touch with current American concerns and unlikely to succeed. The article suggests that Trump’s strategy reflects a desire to relive past eras of American history, driven by a nostalgic and regressive vision.
Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times
President Trump knows that he is unpopular.
This is why he’s become even more obsessed with election fraud; why he fumed and rambled about the 2020 election for a prime-time audience last week; and why he wants Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that — in his mind — would make it impossible for Democrats to win the midterm elections.
This is why both he and his Republican allies are throwing everything they have at Democrats in an attempt to find a message that sticks with the public, a message that could help them hold Congress for another two years. And what Trump and the Republican Party have settled on to spearhead their campaign against the Democratic Party is the threat of communism.
That’s right: communism. It is unclear exactly what Trump has in mind when he says “communism,” although there is no reason to think that the president could distinguish Marxism-Leninism from Maoism or Trotskyism or some other more boutique formulation. Whatever his meaning, the important point is that communism is, to the president, the single greatest threat to the safety, prosperity and integrity of the United States.
“Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty,” he said at a semi-quincentennial event at Mount Rushmore on July 3. “It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor or even 9/11.”
The next day, in his Independence Day speech on the National Mall, Trump was even more emphatic about the threat communism poses. “The communist system is the opposite of the American system, and the communist system has never worked,” he said. “Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We’re not going to let it happen.”
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning.
Following the president’s direction, Republican leaders in Congress have also pledged to fight the Red menace, tying it explicitly to the Democratic Party. “The Bolshevik takeover of the Democratic Party is in full swing, and communism is on the ballot this November,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House majority leader, said. One imagines that we’ll soon see Republicans quoting Alexander Kolchak and waving the banner of the White Army.
It is clear that all of this is a response to the recent success of insurgent left-wing candidates in Democratic primaries, especially those with ties to the Democratic Socialists of America. These candidates, who won Democratic primaries — most recently Melat Kiros of Colorado — are not communists. D.S.A.’s origins, in fact, lie in part with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, whose leadership came from the anti-communist left. But it is perhaps too much to expect American conservatives to distinguish between the many flavors of left-wing politics in the United States.
In any case, Republicans hope to wield the public’s longstanding hostility to socialism as a weapon against Democratic Party politicians, whether or not they fall on the left or call themselves democratic socialists. (And if the recent activities of Marco Rubio and the State Department are any indication, the administration also wants to wield the specter of communism as it makes its plans for Cuba.)
But Americans are neither as hostile to socialism as they once were nor as positive toward capitalism as they have been in the past. More important than polling, however, is the fact that for many Americans the “communist threat” is a total abstraction. There are tens of millions of voters (this columnist included) who were young children when the Soviet Union fell. There are millions more who weren’t yet born. For these Americans, “communism” is as much a concern as “the missile gap” or the Contras. It is completely unresponsive to the circumstances of their lives — to their struggles with housing, health care and the overall cost of living. As a message, “communism” is out of touch with reality; more likely to drive voters away from Trump and the Republican Party than push them into their arms.
It is fitting that Trump, a student of Roy Cohn, would turn to Red-baiting as he fights for political survival. Cohn was a prosecutor in the trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy, where he played a major role in McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunts. The president, who isn’t known for his embrace of new ideas, might see anti-communism as an easy path to victory.
What’s more, Trump’s turn to Cold War-era rhetoric, and specifically that of the Second Red Scare, is of a piece with the overall dynamic of his administration.
You can understand the two Trump presidencies as attempts to relive and re-enact the most atrocious moments in American history, as if the nation were led by toxic obsessives who relished the cruelty and criminality of the past and worshiped perpetrators as heroes — the supposedly hard men who built the country we know.
The president himself gestures toward this game of copycat when he hails Andrew Jackson or praises William McKinley as a man who made America great. And the administration itself seems to want to consciously emulate those moments of infamy and ignobility in the American past.
The administration’s hegemonic war in Venezuela and anti-Canadian saber rattling evoke the crudely imperial posture of the United States at the turn of the 20th century. Its racist nativism is a throwback to both the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — which it recently defended in its tendentious critique of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History — and the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which effectively closed the country to African, Asian and Southern and Eastern European immigrants for more than 40 years. Its use of ICE and Customs and Border Protection as a roving deportation force, aimed at anyone who looks suspect, is more than a little reminiscent of the federal bounty hunters deputized under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It is also an echo of the first Red Scare, the Palmer raids and J. Edgar Hoover’s hunt for radicals during the Woodrow Wilson administration.
Of course this president, and this administration, would want to emulate the anti-communist hysterias of the 1910s and the 1950s. Of course he and his administration would want to resurrect the fear, bitterness and paranoia that marked the hunt for alleged subversives.
Both Trump and his movement are, as you might surmise from the slogan “Make America Great Again,” fundamentally derivative. His vision of the future rests on a rotten nostalgia, and his plans for getting there were drawn from the wreckage of a shameful past.
The president’s attempt to drum up a third Red Scare is certain to fail. If it matters — if it is interesting — it is only because it gives us a glimpse into the stunted imagination of a man who seems to value only the worst this country has to offer.
Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va.“
“The Trump administration plans to announce a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia, potentially allowing the kingdom to enrich its own nuclear fuel. This deal, aimed at strengthening US-Saudi relations amid tensions with Iran, has faced opposition from some US lawmakers and Israeli officials concerned about potential weaponization. While the agreement includes provisions for joint studies and partnerships, it lacks the stringent inspections and fuel production restrictions seen in previous agreements, like the one with the United Arab Emirates.
U.S. lawmakers and Israeli officials have expressed opposition to such a plan, to be announced Wednesday, fearing that the kingdom could use a civilian nuclear project to develop nuclear weapons.
President Trump shaking hands with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud at the White House last November.Kenny Holston/The New York Times
David Sanger reported from Washington, Edward Wong from Manila, where he is covering a diplomatic trip by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and William J. Broad from New York.
The Trump administration plans to announce Wednesday that it has reached a broad nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that could lead to the country enriching its own fuel for nuclear reactors, U.S. officials said.
The accord is intended to further bind the United States with the Saudi government as the war with Iran strains the relationship. The Trump administration, according to officials, estimates it will provide billions of dollars for the U.S. nuclear industry — starting with Westinghouse, which designs many of the reactors sold abroad.
The Trump administration plans to formally sign and announce the agreement with the Saudis on Wednesday, said two U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. It would announce the details to Congress soon afterward.
Although the agreement likely would have support among many Republicans, some U.S. lawmakers from both parties along with Israeli officials have expressed opposition to such a plan, fearing that the kingdom could use a civilian nuclear project to eventually develop nuclear weapons.
The accord has been under discussion for years, and during the Biden administration it was envisioned as part of a broader deal that would include Saudi diplomatic recognition of Israel. But after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel by Hamas, that prospect receded. President Trump separated the proposal for U.S.-Saudi civilian nuclear cooperation from any demand that Saudi Arabia recognize Israel.
The agreement will require review by Congress, which under the Atomic Energy Act has the power to vote a resolution of disapproval. But as a practical matter, the agreement would likely pass, because Congress would have to assemble a veto-proof majority to override Mr. Trump’s initiative.
Nonetheless, debate over the accord is likely to be fierce. To get the deal done with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s 40-year-old de facto leader, Mr. Trump had to agree to terms that may limit international inspectors from going to any sites in the country that they think could be a pathway to diverting fuel to weapons projects. And he agreed that, after a joint study with Saudi Arabia on the economics of producing nuclear fuel, the Saudis may be allowed to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium on their soil.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday night that Mr. Trump had approved the agreement.
Prince Mohammed has vowed he would build nuclear weapons if Iran does so, even insisting in one interview he would do so “without a doubt.”
Iran has had a nuclear program that it says is intended for civilian use, though it has enriched uranium to near weapons grade following Mr. Trump’s withdrawal in 2018 from an Obama-era nuclear deal. Mr. Trump then ordered U.S. forces to join with Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025, and to start a war against Iran this February.
Mr. Trump and Prince Mohammed agreed to proceed with U.S.-Saudi civilian nuclear cooperation during a visit to the White House by the prince last November. U.S. and Saudi officials have been in talks on a plan since then. They were finalizing the details this spring and summer, and aimed to share the plan with Congress soon, The New York Times reported earlier this month.
The agreement includes two secret side letters reached with the Saudis. The administration is expected to argue they contain proprietary business information and deal with sensitive national security issues. But some members of Congress may not be willing to vote for the accord until the letters are all made public.
The type of deal that the Trump administration has reached with Saudi Arabia is called a 123 Agreement (pronounced 1-2-3), which establishes a legally binding framework between nations on nuclear cooperation. The obligations of such an agreement are aimed at ensuring non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States has 26 such agreements with 51 governments and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr. Trump’s concessions to the Saudis on the terms of the nuclear deal are significant. When the United States entered into a similar agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which went into force in 2009, there were far more restrictive conditions. The U.A.E. agreed to the stringent inspections, signing what is called an “additional protocol” with the International Atomic Energy Agency. And it agreed to forgo the right to produce its own fuel, cutting off the possibility that it would have the infrastructure to produce a weapon.
That agreement became known as the “gold standard” for nuclear nonproliferation. And while the administration plans to argue that it will have other restrictions in place — including joint partnerships with the Saudis that will allow Washington to keep a close eye on the kingdom’s program — the fact remains that Mr. Trump has retreated from the restrictions negotiated by the Bush and Obama administrations.
While the bulk of the negotiations with the U.A.E. took place while President George W. Bush was in office, it was finished by President Barack Obama and went into effect in 2009.
During the first Trump administration, Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a businessman and top fund-raiser for Mr. Trump, proposed to the White House that U.S. companies, including his own private equity firm, help Saudi Arabia build nuclear power plants. That proposal stalled, in part because of Saudi reluctance to agree to American nonproliferation policies.
The Biden administration had talks with the Saudis on a civilian nuclear deal as part of a proposal that would have the kingdom recognize Israel.
In April 2025, soon after Mr. Trump returned to office, Chris Wright, the energy secretary, discussed a proposal with Prince Mohammed on a visit to the kingdom, six months before the prince’s visit to Washington, U.S. officials said.
Mr. Trump and Prince Mohammed clashed in May over U.S. aggression in the Iran war. The prince refused to let the U.S. military use Saudi airspace for an operation to escort commercial tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran’s forces essentially control. The civilian nuclear agreement helps put U.S.-Saudi relations on more stable ground again.
During the Biden administration, the United States and Saudi Arabia were also discussing a mutual defense agreement, as part of the broad plan that would include nuclear cooperation in exchange for Saudi recognition of Israel. The Saudis have long pressed U.S. officials for a mutual defense agreement that would be ratified by the Senate, so that future American presidents could not easily back out of one. Saudi officials wanted such an agreement in part to deter against Iranian aggression.
Mr. Trump and Prince Mohammed reached an understanding during the White House meeting last November on a defense arrangement between the two governments, which would include the sale of advanced F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom. But that fell short of a treaty that the administration would present to the Senate for ratification.
During the Iran war this year, Saudi Arabia has relied on the United States to provide interceptor missiles for air defense against Iranian projectiles. However, Saudi officials have concerns about whether American policy in the Middle East, including the U.S. partnership with Israel, is increasing risks to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab nations.
In part because of that, Saudi diplomats have been trying to hold talks with Iran. The two countries normalized diplomatic relations in 2023, in a deal brokered by China.
David E. Sanger covers the Trump administration and a range of national security issues. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written four books on foreign policy and national security challenges.
Edward Wong reports on global affairs, U.S. foreign policy and the State Department for The Times.
William J. Broad has reported on science at The Times since 1983. He is based in New York.
Add the Sunday Times in print to your subscription. 50% off the first year. Learn more.”
Trump Administration Live Updates: White House Withholds Medicaid Funds for California and Minnesota
President Trump returning to Joint Base Andrews on Sunday.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
What We’re Covering Today
Medicaid Funds:The Trump administration is withholding more federal funding for Medicaid from two states, California and Minnesota, over allegations of fraud in their public health insurance programs.Read more ›
Iran War:Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will appear before the Senate Appropriations Committee at 2:30 p.m. Eastern time to ask for $87 billion more to fund the Iran war. Mr. Hegseth and General Cainehave not publicly talked about the conflictin depth since May. They are likely to be asked about the recent attacks that killed three U.S. soldiers in Jordan and Iraq and the strategy behind the military’s resumption of strikes in Iran.
Intelligence Pick:The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to vote as soon as Tuesday on whether to advance Jay Clayton’s nomination to become director of national intelligence. Democrat lawmakers last weekgrilled Mr. Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, after he refused to say whether Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won the 2020 election."
Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding
Elon Musk’s businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX, have received at least $38 billion in government funding through contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. This government support, particularly from NASA and the Department of Energy, has been crucial to the growth and success of Musk’s ventures. Despite advocating for reduced government spending, Musk’s companies have significantly benefited from government programs, especially during Democratic administrations.
Government infusions at key moments helped Tesla and SpaceX flourish, boosting Musk’s wealth.
(Illustration by Anna Lefkowitz/The Washington Post; Alex Brandon/AP; iStock)
Elon Musk and his cost-cutting U.S. DOGE Service team have been on a mission to trim government largesse. Yet Musk is one of the greatest beneficiaries of the taxpayers’ coffers.
Over the years, Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits, often at critical moments, a Washington Post analysis has found, helping seed the growth that has made him theworld’s richest person.
The payments stretch back more than 20 years. Shortly after becoming CEO of a cash-strapped Tesla in 2008, Musk fought hard to secure a low-interest loan from the Energy Department, according to two people directly involved with the process,holding daily briefings with company executives about the paperwork and spending hours with a government loan officer.
When Tesla soon after realized it was missing a crucial Environmental Protection Agency certification it needed to qualify for the loan days before Christmas, Musk went straight to the top, urging then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to intervene, according to one of thepeople. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
Story continues below advertisement
Nearly two-thirds of the $38 billion in funds have been promised to Musk’s businesses in the past five years.
In 2024 alone, federal and local governments committed at least $6.3 billion to Musk’s companies, the highest total to date.
In 2014, Nev. pledged $1.3B toTeslato build a factory
SpaceXcontracts soared as NASA steps up moon program
Musk’s companies have received billions from the government
Total contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits by company
Note: Business Oregon committed nearly $6 million to a third company, X Corp.
The total amount is probably larger: This analysis includes only publicly available contracts, omitting classified defense and intelligence work for the federal government.SpaceX has been developing spy satellites for the National Reconnaissance Office, the Pentagon’s spy satellite division, according to theReuters news agency.The Wall Street Journalreportedthat contract was worth $1.8 billion, citing company documents.
The Post found nearly a dozen other local grants, reimbursements and tax credits where the specific amount of money is not public.
An additional 52 ongoing contracts with seven government agencies — including NASA, the Defense Department and the General Services Administration — are on track to potentially pay Musk’s companies an additional $11.8 billion over the next few years, according to The Post’s analysis.
Government contractsto SpaceX from NASAand the Defense Department make up the majority of funds. Tesla has earned $11.4 billion in regulatory credits from federal and state programs aimed at boosting the electric-car industry, and experts say its sales have been bolstered by a federal $7,500 electric-vehicle tax credit for consumers. Musk hascalled for an end to that consumer credit, arguing his competitors need the incentive more than Tesla.
DOGE, which stands for Department of Government Efficiency, has sought to cut staff, slash budgets or cut contracts at all seven of the agencies where Musk’s companies have ongoing contracts. That includes the General Services Administration, Defense Department and Transportation Department.
Musk’s relationships with government agencies have at times beenmutually beneficial: His ventures have pioneered new markets that have advanced U.S. government goals, including space exploration and the expansion of electric vehicles. And while many of the government programs Musk has benefited from are open to others in the electric-vehicle industry, no other company has gone on to achieve Tesla’s market dominance.
Story continues below advertisement
“Not every entrepreneur at this scale has been this dependent on federal money — certainly not Nvidia, not Microsoft, nor Amazon, nor Meta,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, professor at the Yale School of Management, who noted that much of the funding has come during Democratic administrations. “With DOGE, there does seem to be a paradox there. He has been a big beneficiary of national industrial policy, especially Democrat industrial policy, through government funding.”
Government funding also provided key early infusions to Musk’s ventures. NASA and the Defense Departmentnurtured SpaceXin its earliest years with contracts that helped it build infrastructure, while the agency tolerated the company’s failure to meet required milestones on time, according to congressional investigators.
The $465 million Energy Department loan, which arrived in 2010, helped fuel Tesla’s meteoric rise: With that money, the company engineered and assembled its luxury electric sedan — the Model S — and bought a factory in Fremont, California,according to the agency. Tesla went public six months later.
A Tesla employee works on a Model S in Fremont, California, in 2015.(Jeff Chiu/AP)
“Tesla would not have survived without the loan,” said a former high-level Tesla employee familiar with the company’s finances, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “It was a critical loan at a critical time.”
Musk himself noted the challenges facing the company at the time,according to emailspublished by the Free Beacon, imploring Jackson, then the EPA chief, to help. “Tesla struggled for its life over the past year and then, just when we thought things would be alright, this issue came to light,” he wrote. “I am at your disposal 24/7,” Musk added, including hiscellphone number.
Jackson declined to comment through a representative at Apple, where she now works. SpaceX, Musk and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.
NASA spokeswoman Cheryl Warner said the agency has invested more than $15 billion in SpaceX for its work on numerous space programs.
“NASA is working with partners like SpaceX to build an economy in low Earth orbit and take our next giant leaps in exploration at the Moon and Mars for the benefit of all,” Warner said in an email.
White House spokesman Harrison Fields said that Musk’s business interests would not conflict with his work at DOGE. “Any contracts connected to Elon Musk’s very successful companies will comply with every government ethics rule as it pertains to potential conflicts of interests,” Fields said in an email.
As much as Tesla executives valued the government support, Muskpaid off the 2010 low-interest loanwithin a matter of years. In a 2013 news release announcing that he had done so, Musk thanked the Energy Department and Congress, and “particularly the American taxpayer from whom these funds originate.”
“I hope we did you proud,” he said.
______________________
Tesla flourished on a wave of state aid
Since its 2003 Silicon Valley founding, Tesla has benefited from billions in rebates and tax credits from California. The state’s governor, Gavin Newsom (D),has claimedthat “there was no Tesla without California’s regulatory bodies, and regulation.” Tesla has saidit investedmore than $5 billion in the state since 2016 and employed more than 47,000 people locally.
About a third of Tesla’s $35 billion in profits since 2014 has come from selling federal and state regulatory credits to other automakers. The credits are given to automakers that meet certain standards, including selling a certain percentage of zero-emission vehicles. Tesla is the largest seller of these credits to automakers that don’t meet the standards and want to avoid paying a fine.
These credits played a crucial role in the company’sfirst profitable quarter in 2013and its first full year of profitability in 2020, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Without the credits, Tesla would have lost more than $700 million in 2020, marking a seventh-consecutive year with no profits, according to an analysis of SEC filings.
With the credits, the company instead reported a $862 million profit.
While Musk has advocated for ending the EV tax credit for consumers, he has said little about these regulatory credits.
Automotive credits were key in Tesla’s first full year of profitability
Tesla’s net incomewith creditsandwithout credits
Automotive credits totaled nearly$1.6B. Without them, Tesla would have lost$718M
Net income
without credits
“They would have been totally in the red if it were not for the incentives,” said Alan Jenn, an assistant professor at the Electric Vehicle Research Center at the Institute of Transportation Studies. “That is the thing that has really kept them afloat.”
The company has also benefited from the $7,500 federal tax credit for EV buyers, which helped make Tesla’s cars — which cancost upward of $80,000— more affordable for consumers who may not have bought them otherwise.
Nearly a tenth of government money that has benefited Musk’s companies comes from agencies in eight states, including California. Since 2007, state and local governments have given Musk companies at least $1.5 billion in tax credits, grants and reimbursements, while various government agencies at multiple levels contributed another $2.1 billion, much of it to drive the development of Tesla and the batteries it relies upon, according to data from the advocacy group Good Jobs First.
Tesla’s funding from federal, state and local agencies
Contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits,2007to present
Automotive regulatory credits
Tesla sold credits to other automakers that did not meet the zero-emission vehicles standards established by federal and state governments.
Nevada Governor's Office of Economic Development
Nevada (multiple sources)
Local and state governments’ incentive package awarded to Tesla to build, with Panasonic, a battery “gigafactory” outside Reno.
New York (multiple sources)
Multiple New York state government agencies awarded money to Musk’s SolarCity company.
In Nevada, local and state governments awarded a $1.3 billion incentive package to Tesla so the carmaker and Panasonic woulderect a lithium battery “gigafactory”outside Reno, according to the state.
Story continues below advertisement
Not all the agreements met their goals. Under then-Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), New York state ponied up $750 million in 2014 incentives to Musk’s SolarCity company, with Musk agreeing to invest heavily in production, bringing hundreds of high-end manufacturing jobs to Buffalo. Instead, hiring fell well below the state’s expectations, and Musk had Tesla acquire the company two years later.
And despite receiving billions from the state of California, Musk relocated Tesla’sheadquarters from Palo Alto to Austin in 2021, citing unhappiness with the business environment.
In interviews, Muskhas brushed off the company’s dependence on subsidies, while acknowledging that the assistance helped accelerate the speed with which Tesla was able to grow.
“If I cared about subsidies, I would have entered the oil and gas industry,” Musk told theLos Angeles Times in 2015.
Musk later railed against President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act bill, even though it made Tesla reeligible for the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit: “I’m literally saying get rid of all subsidies,” he said in a2021interviewwith the Wall Street Journal. “Tesla’s made basically twice as many electric vehicles as the rest of [the] industry combined. And we don’t need the $7,500 tax credit.”
Story continues below advertisement
Musk’s support for slashing subsidies across “all industries” comes as Tesla dominates the U.S.electric-vehicle industry, according to aJanuary Kelley Blue Book report, though its share has dropped in recent years. In response to a question in July about what impact striking the tax credit and other incentives would have on Tesla, Musk — who donated at least $277 million to Donald Trump’s 2024 election campaign — said it would hurt the company in the short term but would be “devastating for our competitors.”
John Helveston, a professor at George Washington University who studies electric vehicles, said Tesla is a prime example of the success that can come from government investment in nascent industries, though government assistance alone does not guarantee success.
By pushing to cut subsidies across all industries, Helveston said, Musk is strangling a potential lifeline for smaller companies — and his competitors.
“Pretty much every aspect [of Tesla] has benefited from direct government subsidy or financing,” he said. “It’s not a weird phenomenon for Tesla to benefit from this, but it is certainly hypocritical.”
_______________________________
NASA gave SpaceX boost
Musk’s rocket company — which aimed from the beginning to put astronauts on Mars — received an early infusion from a major client: the Defense Department.
After founding SpaceXin 2002, Muskdeveloped a close and at times adversarial relationship with NASA and the Defense Department. The company filed lawsuits and lobbied aggressivelyto gain access to government-funded space programs cornered by established aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
Although the company was founded with $100 million from Musk’s own fortune, SpaceX benefited from government advice and money long before it sent anything into orbit, according to public contract documents and statements from the company’s leaders.
The Pentagon’s specialized research arm, known as DARPA, started paying SpaceX in 2003 for early conceptual work.
SpaceX’s funding from federal, state and local agencies
Contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits,2003to present, for SpaceX’s rocket business and Starlink, its satellite internet service
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
U.S. Agency for International Development
The agency later agreed to purchase the inaugural launch of the company’s first rocket, Falcon 1, whichended in failure in March 2006 when its engines stopped firing less than a minute into the flight. But the Pentagon signed on to support more launch attempts.
Though SpaceX had yet to successfully reach space, NASA awarded the company a $278 million contract in 2006 as part of a program to ferry supplies to and from the International Space Station.Just months after SpaceX’s Falcon 1 successfully reached orbitin 2008, NASA awarded the company a much larger, $1.6 billion contract.
SpaceX had already started building its next rocket, Falcon 9, and NASA paid the company in installments for successive milestones and covered some engineering and development work, according to a NASA contract document.
SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida in 2018.(AP)
The company received hundreds of millions of dollars before Falcon 9 reached orbit. Moreover, NASA kept the money flowing although SpaceX repeatedly missed milestone deadlines by up to two years,according to a 2011 reportfrom the Government Accountability Office, a congressionally funded watchdog agency.
The money helped SpaceX ramp up its infrastructure, allowing it to build and launch rockets for NASA and other clients. Falcon 9 became a keystone of SpaceX’s business, launching about once every three days carrying a mix of government spy satellites, satellites for competitors and small satellites for the Starlink internet service that now accounts for the lion’s share of SpaceX revenue, according to industry analysts.
In 2016, SpaceX’s success in securing federal contracts prompted rival Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin (and owner of The Washington Post), to say in a company meeting: “Elon’s real superpower is getting government money,”The Post reported. “From now on, we go after everything that SpaceX bids on.”
Story continues below advertisement
SpaceX, which reuses its rockets, is able to charge dramatically less than competitors for each launch, ultimately benefiting the Pentagon and NASA, analysts say. At an investment conference in November, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell acknowledged the company has received billions of dollars in U.S. government contracts, adding that the company has delivered. “We earned that,” she said. “It’s not a bad thing to serve the U.S. government with great capability and products.”
Over time, some analysts say, SpaceX has become less dependent on government business as subscriptions for its Starlink internet service have boomed. The investment bank Morgan Stanley estimated in a January report that SpaceX made $9.3 billion from Starlink in 2024 alone.
But SpaceX’snumerous launcheswith classified cargo make it hard to accurately estimate the value of its black-budget contracts — or calculate how important government work is to the company’s overall revenue, said American Enterprise Institute analyst Todd Harrison.
Shotwell, however, has credited NASA’s early funding for building SpaceX, notingin a 2013interviewat SpaceX’s headquartersthat the company would “probably be limping along” without the agency’s support.
“I don’t know what the world would look like without that program for SpaceX. It would look very different,” she said. “We wouldn’t have this beautiful factory; we wouldn’t have this lovely conference room with these incredibly comfortable chairs. Yes, this is as much NASA as it is SpaceX here.”
About this story
Editing by Alexis Sobel Fitts and David Fallis. Data editing by Meghan Hoyer. Graphics editing by Kate Rabinowitz. Design editing by Christian Font. Copy editing by Carey L. Biron.
The Post identified direct and indirect government payments in the form of contracts, grants, loans and tax credits made to companies owned by Musk.
Government payments to Tesla Inc., its predecessor Tesla Motors, Space Exploration Technologies (known as SpaceX) and X Corp. were drawn fromthe federal spending trackerUSAspending.gov, theFederal Procurement Data SystemandGood Jobs First, an organization that tracks federal, state and local grants, subsidies and tax credits, as well as filings from the Securities and Exchange Commission. These payments span more than 20 years: The first publicly available payment included is a 2003 contract between the Defense Department and Space Exploration Technologies. Payment records are updated through Feb. 18, 2025.The data includes more than 400 federal contracts, nearly 90 federal and local grants, more than two-dozen tax credits or property tax abatements, and six loans. California and Colorado have also reimbursed Tesla and SpaceX for employee training programs.
USAspending.gov data of government purchase contracts showed that $22.5 billion was paid to Space Exploration Technologies and Tesla Inc. A small portion of this included reimbursements to outside companies for their subscriptions to Starlink internet services, which The Post has classified as revenue for Space Exploration Technologies. The Post also included a 2021 classified contract for $1.8 billion from the Defense Department to Space Exploration Technologies based onreporting by the Wall Street Journal.
To find the ongoing contracts in USAspending data, The Post identified those that had not reached their potential end date. The remaining value of the ongoing contracts is the amount that has yet to be completed and paid for.
Data from Good Jobs First includes payments made by various city and state governments, the Treasury Department and the Energy Department. Federal payments listed in Good Jobs First were included only if they were not listed in USAspending. Good Jobs First data accounted for nearly $4.5 billion paid to Musk companies, including $1.9 billion from state and local governments. Eleven payments from Arizona, California, Michigan and Texas are for undisclosed amounts, so are not in The Post’s total.
Automakers of zero-emission vehicles receive federal and state government credits that can be sold to other manufacturers needing help to meet emissions targets. SEC filings show that Tesla earned $11.4 billion from the sale of regulatory credits since 2014. While the government doesn’t directly pay Tesla, federal and state laws allow electric-vehicle companies to profit from these sales. Tesla Inc.’s revenue and profits after taxes going back to 2014 were acquired from their publicly available SEC filings.
The Post searched USAspending.gov and the Good Jobs First databases for government payments toNeuralink and the Boring Company, two other Musk-owned companies, butfound no contracts or subsidies.
