Fresh Air - What Do Billionaires Like Elon Musk Want From Trump?

Episode Date: October 22, 2024

New Yorker writer Susan Glasser says Musk has spent $75 million to support Trump. If elected, Trump promises to appoint Musk to head a commission to cut costs in every part of the federal government.Maureen Corrigan reviews the satirical novel Blood Test by Charles Baxter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Autograph Collection Hotels, with over 300 independent hotels around the world, each exactly like nothing else. Autograph Collection is part of the Marriott Bonvoy portfolio of hotel brands. Find the unforgettable at autographcollection.com. This is Fresh Air. I'm Terry Gross. One of the most active and ardent supporters of Donald Trump's campaign is the world's richest man Elon Musk. Musk and about 13 other billionaires have become the financial core of the Trump campaign.

So what do these ultra rich individuals hope to get in return and what have they already gotten from Trump? My guest Susan Glasser investigates these questions in her new article from Trump. My guest Susan Glasser investigates these questions in her new article, Purchasing Power or How Billionaires Learn to Love Trump Again. It's published in The New Yorker, where Glasser is a staff writer based in Washington. Glasser writes, Trump's time in the White House provided ample evidence that some billionaires could have extraordinary sway in a second Trump administration. Glasser writes a weekly column on life in Washington and is one of the hosts, along with Evan Osnos and Jane Mayer, of the New Yorker podcast, The Political Scene. Glasser co-wrote the book The Divider about Trump and his presidency.

Her co-author is her husband, Peter Baker, who covers the White House for the New York Times. Our interview was recorded yesterday. Susan Glasser, welcome to Fresh Air. I learned so much from your piece. But I want to start by asking, so Kamala Harris has 21 billionaires supporting her campaign. Trump has 14 billionaires. Harris has had the biggest fundraising quarter ever, $1 billion. So why are you writing about Trump and not Harris? That's a great question. Thank you so much, Terri. It's great to be with you. The thing that I learned coming back to the money and politics beat after, you know, many years

of writing about other things is a couple things. Number one, Democrats have an advantage in the presidential money race, in part because they've retained their advantage with small dollar donors. So they actually are able to raise more money from more people. And this has been true more or less since Barack Obama figured out the key to turning on the internet fundraising spigot back in the 2008 campaign. So that's one thing. The other thing is, you're right, Harris has more billionaires supporting her, but Trump

is more dependent on his. They give much larger sums and as we know he's also a different figure than Kamala Harris or really any politician of our lifetime. He's the most openly transactional figure. And that's what I wanted to look into is just what is the nexus between Trump and these billionaires? What could he be promising them? What is it that they want from him? And there, I think it's not just structural, but it also tells you a lot about the candidates. So to give an example of what people are giving to Trump's campaign, Miriam Adelson, the widow of the late casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, has already given $100 million to the Trump

campaign. We should say to Super PACs supporting Trump's campaign. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Right, because that's one of the tricks, right, is that, you know, with this crazy legal regime that we have, they've gotten rid of the effective limits, even though the legal limits still exist. So what happens is that the billionaires and the millionaires, they simply find their way around the legal limits because there's this new avenue available to them, which is unlimited contributions to super PACs that are supporting the campaigns

and that are now even largely able to coordinate with them in ways that were originally not allowed. Thanks largely to the Supreme Court Citizens United decision. What does it say that you're not writing this piece about lobbies or corporations or political parties? It's about individual billionaires donating to super PACs. Yeah. I'm so glad you honed in on that because that's the big structural change for me as a longtime observer of Washington and power. What's fascinating is that the game of money in politics,

especially at the presidential level in particular, it's moved away from what we think of as a sort of fan cat lobbyist, the Washington corporate associations, which is not to say they're not still involved in money and politics, but at the presidential level because the sums of money are so extraordinary. What's happened is in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision is that it's empowered essentially the extremes on both right and left with these enormous amounts that individuals and corporations can now give to super PACs, essentially unlimited amounts that has changed the game. And it's part of the reason I think that our politics is becoming increasingly divisive,

partisan, extreme, and shouty is that there's now a money structural incentive for that to occur. I spoke with Tom Davis, former congressman, very savvy Republican, what we might call a representative of the old Republican establishment, and he made this point to me that, you know, essentially the Citizens United and what's happened since, it took the money power away from the political parties, which had been a centering influence in American politics for more than a century. And it essentially put it out to the extremes. Fred Wertheimer, who spent his lifetime as a public interest lawyer trying to curb the influence of money and politics, he said to me, it's like our money and politics.

It's become a sandbox for billionaires and they're playing in it. So your article starts last February at a lavish Trump administration fundraising event at the mansion of Nelson Peltz, a billionaire investor. His mansion is near Mar-a-Lago. Two dozen of the wealthiest Republicans were there. Now, after January 6,

Peltz said that Trump would always be remembered for that disgrace. And he said, as an American, I'm embarrassed. During this year's Republican primaries, he gave a lot of money to Tim Scott. Then after Scott dropped out, he supported Trump and said, he's a terrible human being, but our country's in a bad place and we can't afford Joe Biden. And he told his guests at this lavish fundraising dinner, we've all got to throw our support behind Trump. Why does he think Biden was so horrible that he needed to vote out Biden and support Trump and get other billionaires to support Trump?

Yeah, I think this is just such an incredibly fascinating moment. This dinner takes place on Friday, February 16th and the only difference is Nelson Pelton a number of the people there They've publicly disavowed Donald Trump. Pelton wasn't even on speaking terms with Trump at the time. He hosted this dinner I should point out it's not a fundraising dinner But it's the prelude to the fundraising that will come. What's happened is that it's clear by mid-February of this year that Donald Trump is once again going to lock up the Republican presidential nomination.

And by the way, the third time unprecedented in the history of the Republican Party that they would have one person running as their nominee in three consecutive elections and Peltz and there's about two dozen people at this dinner. They're essentially highly motivated partisan Donors, right? And so I think that explains a lot of it that in the end they may have preferred somebody else but in you know their motivated Republican givers and so They grasp on to the idea that Biden is terrible for them and they're gonna you know

Maybe many of them later said to me well, you know, he's too old. He's not capable and we hate his policies But they probably would have said that about any Democratic nominee. Essentially what it is is the pragmatic politics of a bunch of Republican billionaires coming back to the fold and being willing to overlook Donald Trump's egregious excesses. And that's really the many, for me, the story writ large of the Trump years is that without people in the Republican establishment, these funders and politicians on Capitol Hill who personally loath Donald Trump, and they don't think any differently about Donald Trump probably as a person than many of Trump's harshest critics, and yet they're willing to enable and empower him.

And I think that quote from Peltz is so revealing. Here he is, and by the way, way Elon Musk is there the world's richest man John Paulson who's been mentioned as a possible future Secretary of the Treasury in a second Trump administration and Peltz gets up And he literally tells them I think Donald Trump is a terrible human being But we should somehow inflict them on the American public again So some of the people at this dinner had already gotten access to Trump during his presidency, including Peltz himself. And Peltz helped provoke Trump's attacks on the U.S. postal service. Can you explain how that happened? That was one of the really important themes to me as I was trying to

look into this kind of highly transactional relationship between Trump and the billionaires is to point out and to go back and look at Trump had an actual record in the White House, right? People tend to treat this sometimes as if Trump is just, it's just the rhetoric. But in fact, in his four years in the presidency, there is a record that suggests that Trump really did give extraordinarily unusual access and almost walk-in privileges to certain of his billionaire friends. There's an incident that Peter and I wrote about in The Divider involving Nelson Peltz, who's an activist investor.

He buys up stakes in companies, tries to get seats on their boards. And he goes in early in the Trump presidency in 2017 to the Oval Office. And we know about this because of a source, a senior official in the Trump White House who told us of this very curious scene when this official was called into the Oval Office and their meeting alone is Nelson Peltz and Donald Trump. Peltz has brought a written dossier to Donald Trump that basically makes a whole bunch of allegations about Amazon and how it is single-handedly, essentially, allegedly, you know, screwing up the U.S. Postal Service. As you know, of course, Donald Trump was predisposed

to be against Amazon. He often publicly complained about it because of its owner, Jeff Bezos, who was also the owner of the Washington Post. So, you know, kind of pushing on an open door and essentially Pels is suggesting that Trump should launch an antitrust investigation. Yeah, because he was saying that Amazon was getting preferential rates and that was helping to bankrupt the Postal Service. Exactly, which, you know, we should point out there's no evidence of that. But Trump embraced this idea and then even later publicly tweeted about it repeatedly. We all remember how that

played out. This was in 2017, but he continued to complain about the postal service all the way up until 2020 and the end of his presidency. But, you know, this was just an, I thought, a really revealing glimpse into, you know, here's just some billionaire buddy of Donald Trump's from Mar-a-Lago who walks in to the Oval Office and all of a sudden the President of the United States is demanding on very spurious grounds, oh, shouldn't we look into and investigate the U.S. Postal Service and Amazon? It's a fascinating moment. What did Peltz stand to gain by saying that there should be an anti-trust charge against Amazon? Isn't that a fascinating question? Actually, Trump's own White House staff were kind of

perplexed by this. Why is this guy here? They tried to look into it and the best that they could figure out was that Peltz had recently purchased a steak in Procter & Gamble, which is a big consumer sales company. And he seemed to believe that Amazon at the time, it was in the middle of finishing up its purchase of Whole Foods and that this would pose a threat to that business. To Procter & Gamble. Yeah. Okay. So let's talk about another guest at this lavish dinner for billionaire would-be donors to the Trump campaign, Elon Musk, the world's richest man, so rich that over the weekend he announced this kind of sweepstakes where one registered voter a day would get

a million dollars from Elon Musk. Let's hear the clip of him explaining this. But before we do, he's talking about people who are registered and sign a petition. What is the petition he's asking them to sign? It's a petition from his political action committee that he has started to support Trump in this election, the America PAC. And what it is, is it's saying that you support the Constitution, the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, of course, and the Second Amendment with its right to keep and bear arms.

But you know, in a way, this is just a kind of bizarre development in the election. The governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, Democrat, has already gone on TV suggesting that this might skirt the limits of legality in that it appears to be essentially $1 million a day given away with the condition specifically that one should register to vote and is that tantamount to vote buying? Right. Okay. So let's hear Musk.

You know, one of the challenges we're having is like, well, how do we get people to know about this petition? Because the legacy media is going to report on it you know not everyone's on X so so I figure how do we get people to know about it well this news I think is gonna really fly so so every day between now and the election we'll be awarding a million dollars starting tonight. So let's talk about how Elon Musk figures into a possible future Trump administration.

It's been announced by Trump that if he wins he would appoint Musk to head a new commission whose job it would be to cut costs in every aspect of government. So you have the story of how Musk got to that place of being the potential czar of cost cutting. Can you tell that story? Yeah, it's so remarkable, Terri, because here we have the world's richest man. Not only is he just a wealthy mega billionaire, but his business, especially his venture SpaceX and Tesla, have been highly intertwined and dependent upon the U.S. government. SpaceX is one of the largest Pentagon contractors. Tesla would not have become what it is without significant government subsidies as it was getting underway. And, you know, it's an enormous

potential conflict of interest to set Musk up as a kind of an arbiter of government spending with a direct pipeline and ear of the president himself. And yet that is exactly what he and Trump now seem to be proposing that he would do in a way that is entirely outside of and not accountable to the US Congress or in any other way. This is not a real job. You know, Trump is joking about him as a secretary of cost cutting, but the proposal that they seem to envision is that he would continue to be a private businessman, work on the outside, and yet also oversee this enormous sweeping portfolio on behalf of Trump and the White House. And it's been fascinating to me to watch the evolution of this.

So back in February at the billionaire's dinner at Nelson Peltz's house, at that time, Musk is still saying probably he's not going to explicitly support any specific candidate. But he becomes more and more over time as the months go on in 2024, more publicly and explicitly pro-Trump. And he formally endorses Donald Trump in the immediate aftermath of the first assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. This summer, as you know, he then turns over his public platform of X, the former Twitter,

to an array of pro-Trump lies and conspiracy theories, many of them spread directly by Musk himself. He also has started this new super PAC, the America super PAC. He spent $75 million of his own money on that, And that's just according to the most recent filing. It could well end up being way more than that. The Trump campaign seems to have outsourced a significant amount of its get out the vote efforts this year to Musk, which is why I think we're seeing that $1 million giveaway. He's practically moved to Pennsylvania, according to recent reports, and is, you know, frenetically working on ginning up turnout there in what, you know, most independent observers think might well

be the crucial state for either Trump or Kamala Harris. And at the same time, he and Trump have been very explicitly and in more and more detailed ways saying that he would play this significant role in the Trump administration. So if Trump wins and Trump appoints Musk to head what would officially be called the Government Efficiency Commission, what possible conflicts of interest would that pose for Musk and what does he stand to gain from such a position? Yeah, it seems to me it's a remarkable inherent conflict of interest. This is a man who currently has billions of dollars in federal government contracts and to set him up as a sort of czar. For things like Tesla and SpaceX?

Correct. His venture, SpaceX. And the satellite system? And the Starlink satellite system makes him one of the Pentagon's largest contractors. And so imagine setting up one contractor out of all the contractors and giving him power to make sweeping recommendations and advising the president on how his competitors, you know, whether their contracts should continue and at what level. It's one of the largest inherent conflicts of interest I've ever heard of. And of course, if this was not an official government position, as it does not appear that it would be, he very

likely would not be subject to the same disclosure laws and giving information to the public that a normal cabinet position would be subject to. Would you say that must behavior has become more erratic, endorsing conspiracy theories on X, which he owns, and like jumping up and down when Trump introduced him at a recent campaign rally, saying if Trump doesn't win, this will be the last election. Danielle Pletka Absolutely, Terri. I mean, I think it's just extraordinary the extent to which this public spectacle of the world's richest man

Becoming also the would-be president's most visible Public supporter that he's amplifying lies and disinformation. It's not just a couple errant tweets I should point out his behavior on X's like dozens and dozens and dozens of examples of him spreading conspiracy theories, untruths, all with the goal, it appears, of electing Donald Trump. I thought that rally that you're talking about in Pennsylvania recently was, you know, for me, one of the iconic moments of the 2024 campaign to have Musk literally leaping up and down on the stage, you know, in a way that suggested some of this for the billionaires is about just, you know, they're dazzled by the celebrity of it all, the chance to be on stage in front of a rally of thousands

of screaming people, you know, in a way they've purchased this walk-on role in American democracy. It's a remarkable spectacle. And I think that whatever the outcome is, this is going to be one of the lasting images for me of this campaign. If you're just joining us, my guest is Susan Glasser, a staff writer for The New Yorker. Her latest article is about the billionaires endorsing Trump and what they hope to get in return or what they've already gotten from Trump. Her article has two titles in The New Yorker, depending on where you're reading it.

In the magazine, it's called Purchasing Power. And on the website, it's called How Billionaires Learned to Love Trump Again. We'll be right back after a short break. I'm Terry Gross, and this is Fresh Air. Hi, this is Molly C.V. Nesbitt, digital producer at Fresh Air. And this is Terry Gross, host of the show. One of the things I do is write the weekly newsletter. And I'm a newsletter

fan. I read it every Saturday after breakfast. The newsletter includes all the week's shows, staff recommendations, and Molly picks timely highlights from the archive. It's a fun read. It's also the only place where we tell you what's coming up next week, an exclusive. So subscribe at whyy.org slash fresh air and look for an email from Molly every Saturday morning. This message comes from Wyse, the app for doing things in other currencies. Send, spend, or receive money internationally and always get the real-time mid-market exchange rate with no hidden fees. Download the Wyse app today or visit wyze.com, T's and C's apply. This message comes from NPR sponsor the NPR Wine Club,

a place to explore the exciting world of wine, including wines inspired by popular NPR shows like Weekend Edition Cabernet. Whether buying a few bottles or joining the club, all purchases help support NPR programming and fund quality reporting developed to connect people to their communities and the world they live in. More at nprwineclub.org slash podcast. Must be 21 or older to purchase. This election season, you can expect to hear a lot of news, some of it meaningful, much of it not.

Give the Up First podcast 15 minutes, sometimes a little less, and we'll help you sort it out, what's going on around the world and at home. Three stories, 15 minutes, Up First every day. Listen every morning, wherever you get your podcasts. This message comes from critics at large. Join the New Yorkers writers as they dissect the latest in pop culture, television, film, and more. From the romanticization of Las Vegas to the obsession of tarot cards,

tune in every Thursday to deepen your knowledge. This is Fresh Air. I'm Terry Gross. Let's get back to the interview I recorded yesterday with Susan Glasser. We're talking about her new article in The New Yorker about the billionaires who have been backing the Trump campaign through super PACs. It's about how much money they've given,

what they hope to gain, and what some of them already got during the Trump administration. Her article has two titles in the New Yorker depending on where you're reading it. In the magazine it's called Purchasing Power and on the website it's called How Billionaires Learned to Love Trump Again. and on the website it's called How Billionaires Learned to Love Trump Again. One of Trump's big fundraising days was right after he was convicted of 34 criminal counts related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. Why did that inspire billionaires to spend more money supporting Trump as opposed to being leery of investing in someone who was just convicted on 34 criminal accounts. That's another one of those enduring questions of 2024. Donald Trump, it seems to me, was

very, very successful at selling the idea, at least to, you know, Republican motivated donors and his part of the electorate, that this was essentially weaponization of the government against him, that this was a partisan case brought by a Democratic DA in highly Democratic New York City, and that therefore it should be seen in the context of some kind of politicized persecution of him. And so when he is convicted, the first time in American history that a former president has ever been convicted in a criminal case of anything, he's convicted on 34 felony counts at the end of May of this year, it turns into one of the biggest fundraising days of the year for

him. And I was really struck in doing my interviews for this piece and how even some Republicans who had not liked Donald Trump all along, they really bought into the idea that this was a political case. I spoke with Ed Rogers. He is a big figure here in Washington where I'm based. He's a, you know, big career-long Republican lobbyist and he had always been kind of a public Trump skeptic and I called him up and I was beginning this reporting on Republican fundraising and he said, Susan, I am now a Trump donor. And I thought, wow, that's really something. And he had never been that in 2016, never been that in 2020. And he gave the day after Trump's conviction. And he told me at

the time that he thought a lot of people who had been, quote, allergic to Trump like him would do so because of the case. That very same night, Donald Trump left the courthouse where he complained about the rigged trial against him. And he went uptown to a major fundraiser. And this was a gathering of about two dozen of the party's biggest donors. and one participant told me they raised as much as $50 million that same night of his conviction One of the people there was Steven Schwartzman who is the head of Blackstone? He's the CEO and that's an investment company

That's the world's largest private equity firm and it was a huge coup That's the world's largest private equity firm. And it was a huge coup for Donald Trump that Schwarzman, just a few days before the verdict, had agreed to support Trump again. Schwarzman was one of many Republican donors and Republicans at all levels who had publicly distanced themselves from Trump after January 6th. He had given a large amount of money to Chris Christie in the Republican primaries who was explicitly running as you know as the anti-Trump Candidate in in the Republican primaries saying that Trump was unfit for office and yet Schwartzman just a few days before the verdict had put out a statement again citing Joe Biden and Biden's policies in

The rationale for why he flip-flopped on Trump. So, Schwarzman had access to Trump during the Trump presidency. Trump asked him to help negotiate NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. And Schwarzman was also Trump's intermediary with the Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Schwarzman made eight trips to China on behalf of the administration, reporting back to about his efforts to quote assure senior Chinese officials that Trump wasn't looking for a trade war So why did Trump ask Schwarzman to take that role and what did Schwarzman have to gain by taking it? You know at the time none of this was disclosed the idea that one of the world's biggest investment figures was also privately playing a role on behalf of the US government that turned out to be, according to Schwarzman's own memoir that he later

published, he played a pivotal role in the renegotiation of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. According to his memoir, he not only was serving as an intermediary, but very explicitly on behalf of the US government, he writes that he made eight different trips to China on Trump's behalf in 2018 alone. That he was the one who directly went to Xi Jinping and invited him to Mar-a-Lago in 2017. And, you know, again, what a conflict of interest that is. That's the, you know, very concept of why we have disclosure laws and conflict of interest laws is so that people are not playing a role for the U.S. government while also having unclear personal business interests. And this is almost the very definition of a conflict of interest that was not properly made clear to the American people.

He's running a fund that is the largest private equity fund in the world. And that means that it has enormous amounts of money that depend upon things like what is the state of the trade relationship between the United States and China and You know, this is the very reason that we have public disclosure laws in this country It's the reason that US cabinet secretaries and senior officials in our executive branch are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate Then they testify on Capitol Hall all the kinds of things that you have to do when you're a senior government official testify on Capitol Hill all the kinds of things that you have to do when you're a senior government official Schwartzman did not have to do and we don't know to what extent he was co-mingling his personal business interests and the business of the US government

We mentioned that there are even more billionaires supporting Kamala Harris than are supporting Trump Do you think that they are expecting a transactional relationship like the transactional relationships you've outlined in your piece about Trump's billionaire supporters? Yeah, I mean, there is no evidence to suggest anything on the scale and scope of Trump and his dealings with the billionaires. It would be a huge scandal if any one of these things that I've written about regarding Trump and his dealings with Individual donors if Harris were doing the same thing I was told that she has made pretty aggressive personal outreach to some of the

Business types in the effort to get some of them back But you know, I think it would be the subject of an investigation Frankly if Harris was proposing to give a campaign contributor the kind of access that Trump is proposing to give to Elon Musk. And this is what we have laws for. It's what we have the Justice Department for. You know, the FEC has largely been rendered toothless in the wake of Citizens United. But again, we do actually have laws that are, you know, meant to regulate conflicts of interest and to minimize them.

And I think that this is another area in which Trump is operating in a whole different scale and scope. That doesn't mean that there can't be inappropriate influence of money in politics among Democrats, including and up to a Democratic president. I hope that people are gonna look aggressively at that. But I was specifically interested in looking at Donald Trump and Exactly. What is he promising to his Republican billionaires?

If you're just joining us, my guest is Susan Glasser. Her article Purchasing Power or How Billionaires Learned to Love Trump Again is Published in the New Yorker where Glasser is a staff writer. We'll be right back. This is Fresh Air. as a staff writer. We'll be right back. This is Fresh Air. Wait, wait, don't tell me. Fresh Air? Up first. NPR News Now, Planet Money, TED Radio Hour, ThruLine, the NPR Politics podcast, Code Switch, Embedded, Books We Love, Wildcard are just some of the podcasts you can enjoy sponsor free with NPR+. Get all sorts of perks across more than 20 podcasts with the bundle option. Learn more at plus.npr.org. If you love our Fresh Air podcast, you should definitely try NPR Plus. With an upgrade to the NPR Plus bundle, you get access and perks from over 20 of NPR's most popular podcasts

and more. And with Fresh Air Plus, you get sponsor-free listening and exclusive bonus episodes every week. So basically, give a little and get a lot in return. Visit plus.npr.org. This message comes from Pushkin. In Revenge of the Tipping Point, bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell returns to the subject of social epidemics and tipping points and the dark side of contagious phenomena available wherever books are sold and wherever you get your audio books. This is Fresh Air. Let's get back to the interview I recorded yesterday with Susan Glasser.

We're talking about her new article, Purchasing Power, or How Billionaires Learn to Love Trump Again. It's about the billionaires supporting Trump, what they hope to get in return if he's re-elected and what some of them have already gotten. It's published in The New Yorker where Glasser is a staff writer. Okay, another example of Trump's flexibility and sometimes seemingly suiting the desires of his major donors has to do with crypto. He had been calling cryptocurrency potentially a disaster waiting to happen and that Bitcoin seemed like a scam. But he started promoting crypto in 2024. How has that change connected possibly to his financial

donors? So for years he's been a very public unambiguous critic of cryptocurrency and specifically of Bitcoin. He said publicly he thought it looked like a scam. He was very dubious of it and he has done a complete about face on this this year. He has not only embraced cryptocurrency and Bitcoin, he has put it into the Republican Party's own platform with great specificity. He has gone and appeared in person this July in Nashville at the Bitcoin annual conference. He has aggressively raised money and support from many of the crypto industry's biggest backers. And in fact, he's even made the co-chair of his transition committee a Wall Street billionaire

named Howard Lutnick, who has become one of the crypto industry's largest public proponents. So if Trump wins and Lutnick becomes the head of Trump's transition team, Lutnick has already promised that people who are appointed to the administration would be subject to a strict loyalty test to avoid the kinds of senior aides who tried to constrain him during his first term, people who weren't, quote, pure to Trump's vision. So what does that say to you? You know, Terri, I was really struck by that interview. Here is a guy who has no government experience.

His entire career has been at this Wall Street brokerage firm, Cantor Fitzgerald. In recent years, he's gone from being a modest donor to Republicans and Democrats into an enormous donor to pro-Trump super PACs. He has flown around the country with Trump. He went from that Nashville cryptocurrency conference.

He got on Trump's airplane, went to a campaign rally with him. Trump kind of like with Elon Musk, he let Lutnick on stage at the rally to introduce his vice presidential nominee. Trump, kind of like with Elon Musk, he let Lutnick on stage at the rally to introduce his vice presidential nominee. Then he appoints him just a couple of weeks after he has a $15 million fundraiser at his Bridgehampton summer estate. Trump appoints him as a co-chair of the transition committee. He's given, I think, something more than $10 million to pro-Trump super PACs in this campaign.

Now Lutnick is giving an interview to Financial Times. That's where that remarkable quote is drawn from, in which he's openly speaking about a loyalty test for US government employees. And I was particularly struck by one aspect of that quote, Terry, in which Howard Lutnick tells the Financial Times interviewer, we're gonna make sure that there are loyalty not only to the policies, but also to the man. In September Trump announced that he and his sons Eric and Don Jr. were getting into the crypto business. There were new companies called World Liberty Financial. What stage is that at, do you know? You know, this is so amazing, right?

So he goes from saying it's a scam to actually participating in crypto himself. And saying that if he wins, that the US will become the crypto capital of the planet. Exactly. And so he does this rollout on X, now that it's become the favored platform for everything involving the Trumps for this business venture called World Liberty Financial. And Trump, it goes on and on and on in this thing. And he can't even explain what exactly this business is going to do, when it's going to

roll out. And there's this very revealing quote that he says in this rollout for it on X on this live stream. He says, well, you know, essentially, I'm not really really sure about it but it's just something we have to do and I'm really struck by that that you know that's the transactionalism of Donald Trump right there like yeah I don't really know what this business is but I've got to support it with my campaign I've got to get into the business myself and it's interesting by the way that that World Liberty Financial, according to an interview

he himself gave to the New York Times, one of the people who helped to set it up and helped get Trump in the crypto business was another of his big campaign donor friends, a man named Steve Witkoff, who helped to set it up and got Trump in business with two very little known crypto entrepreneurs, one of whom later turned out to be a very controversial figure who was quoted saying some crazy things about himself as the kind of like sleazeball of the internet in effect. And that's who a future would-be President of the United States is putting himself in business with in the fall of an election year.

I mean, again, I think we're inured to the many conflicts of interest and things that would be extraordinary scandals for any other politician. Imagine just changing out the names and saying Joe Biden or Kamala Harris is going to go into business with some kind of shady internet entrepreneurs and campaign fundraisers and a crypto business two months before the election. People go crazy. And yet somehow I don't even think people registered with Donald Trump that this was even happening. Something I don't understand about the billionaires who are backing his campaign, several things really. One is that he often turns against the people he's hired in his

administration. You know, he's turned against so many people who had been his supporters. What makes the billionaires think that he won't necessarily turn against them or retract his promises? And also, are they not concerned that his behavior seems to be very erratic now? That he's sometimes incoherent, that he spends time 30 minutes or more dancing at one of his rallies after two people collapsed. That was his response to that, like, let's hear some music. And, you know, over the weekend he talked about Arnold Palmer's man parts and how enhanced they seemed to like how impressive they were in the locker room. That's strange. Why are they concerned about that?

They're investing tens of millions of dollars in helping him to get reelected. I think that you know these are these are smart accomplished people. I think they have a pretty clear read of who Trump is which which is why for many of them, it strikes me as a fairly cynical transaction that they're making. And that's what I was told explicitly from some sources that I have among very senior Republicans who have observed up close this donor class. And they believe that it was very transactional. And they think that transactional and they think that in effect they're purchasing a level of access and seats at the table in a second Trump administration that they simply wouldn't have had in a continued Biden or Harris administration. So that's part of it. But then another part of it is really it's truly remarkable to to

watch partisanship triumph over you know the evidence that they see with their own eyes. And of course, we've had many, many examples of that in this election cycle. But I think these billionaires, they know who Donald Trump is. You had written a book about Trump's presidency, but you found a lot of surprising things in your new article about the billionaires who are backing him and what they hope to get in return. What surprised you most about what you learned in the course of your reporting for this article? So I was actually surprised at how much the dollar amounts have gone up even in the space

of the Trump era. I spoke with a figure people may remember from the Trump era, Gordon Sondland, who was Trump's ambassador to the EU after giving $1 million to Trump's inauguration committee. Sondland told me that was the difference that even from when he was a Republican fundraiser that basically add a zero to the amounts being asked for and being given by these large donors and that in return for it, they're asking for much more for their money. So number one, much more. Number two, Elon Musk has gotten so much of the attention in this election cycle and deservedly so because it's amazing

to see the world's richest man trying to play this role in American politics but I was struck by the fact that it's not just Elon Musk that it's a broad category of people many of whom have widely divergent and highly specific interests they seem to want to put in front of Donald Trump so that's number two and then number three I would say that there's a certain structural neediness on Trump's part for these billionaires that may make him even more vulnerable to them. You know, his strategy actually does depend on raising more money from each of these billionaires than his Democratic rivals.

And that means he's more dependent on them. Susan Glasser, thank you so much for your reporting and for coming on our show. It's been really interesting. Carrie, thank you so much for having me. It's wonderful to be back with you. Susan Glasser is a staff writer at The New Yorker. Her new article is titled Purchasing Power.

On The New Yorker's website, it's titled How Billionaires Learn to Love Trump Again. After a short break, our book critic, Maureen Karaghan, recommends a new comic novel, she says, may give you some stress-relieving laughs. This is Fresh Air. This message comes from the podcast, Strict Scrutiny. Join law experts Melissa Murray, Leah Litman, and Kate Shaw as they break down the biggest legal headlines and SCOTUS decisions. New episodes drop every Monday. Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Hey there, it's Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I know this is hard to believe, but one day the election will be over. Then

the winner gets a lot more powerful. It's my job to report on what they do with that power. That's public accountability, but it's not possible without public support. So please support our work. Sign up for NPR+. Go to plus.npr.org. This message comes from the Open Book with Jenna podcast. Join the today's shows Jenna Bush Hager for inspiring conversations with celebrities, experts, and authors. Hear from guests like Stephen Colbert, Nicholas Sparks, and more. Search open book with Jenna to follow now. This is fresh air. Perhaps you feel as our book critic Maureen Corrigan does that now might be a good time for a stress-relieving laugh or two. If so, she

recommends a new comic novel by Charles Baxter called Blood Test. Here's her review. It's a challenging time for social satire. For one thing, the country sometimes seems as divided by what it finds funny as it is by politics. But Blood Test, a new novel by Charles Baxter, perhaps spans divisions because it draws upon a tried and true comic predicament, namely the little guy who's forced to punch above his weight with a larger entity. That entity might be industry, as in Charlie Chaplin's masterpiece, Modern Times, or government and law enforcement agencies, as in Jess Walter's superb 2005 novel Citizen Vince, about an ex-con determined to exercise his right to vote for the first time. In Blood Test, the entity is the pharmaceutical industry. The everyman hero of this tale is a middle-aged

divorced father of two named Brock Hobson who sells insurance for a living in Ohio. One day Brock makes an appointment at the local medical clinic to have a pain checked out. Here's Brock's description of the clinic and his fellow patients, a thumbnail description of a lot of places in America. The parking spaces outside the clinic are usually filled. We have a lot of near dead people in these parts. You can see them staggering in, breathing hard,

young and old, propped up by their canes or walkers. It's probably the post-industrial air we breathe here, or maybe the nitrate-scented water we drink out of the tap, or the fact that a third of the town has a drinking problem, and another third is on meth and or oxy. You fall down here in Kingsborough, Ohio. You're in good company. It's a grand party of the infirm down here on the ground. The doctor who briskly assesses Brock's pain as stress-related also susses out that he has the money to purchase a product a medical startup company is offering. It's a blood test that can not only predict health problems down the road, but also behaviors

like say romantic entanglements or promotions. Brock impulsively signs up for the test, which also requires answering a questionnaire with queries such as, What is your preferred method for opening tin cans? and If you found out that God does not like you, how would you fix the problem? Eventually, the results come back predicting that mild-mannered Brock will embark on a major crime wave. Indeed, it's likely he's going to commit a murder. What ensues is a screwball adventure. And I do mean screwball. There's even a banana peel joke here, in which Brock tries to outrun his homicidal fate and

assert his individual free will. If he is predestined to murder somebody, however, the most likely candidate would be Bert Kindlove, his ex-wife's boyfriend. Bert is a handsome bully, deeply immersed in a Dianetics-type lifestyle practice. deeply immersed in a Dianetics type lifestyle practice. He's also shamed Brock's depressed teenage son for being gay. Brock deftly encapsulates his nemesis's personality this way. Bert has an imperturbable ignorance about the world and what people are really like.

If you were to ask him where Italy is located on the globe, he wouldn't know, but would despise you for asking. Humor, as we know, often arises from pain. Going back as far as his 2000 novel, The Feast of Love, which was nominated for a National Book Award, Baxter has wielded wit and satire to entertain and to illuminate harder truths about the world his characters inhabit. Brock's small town Ohio is a place where the most flourishing business besides the medical clinic is famous discount store where customers can browse discount DVDs with titles like His Holiness, Pope Robot and buy off-brand diet cola that tastes like fizzy sugared cat food. For sure it can be a zany place where people find themselves drawn to certainty through sketchy blood tests and lifestyle practices.

But as Braque says, if you don't like zany, you probably shouldn't live in America. You can always go somewhere like Switzerland. In Blood Test, Baxter invites us to laugh at this all-American zaniness and to acknowledge some of the pain that fuels it. Maureen Kargan is a professor of literature at Georgetown University. She reviewed Blood Test by Charles Baxter. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, writer John Le Carre's son, Nick Harkaway, tells us about bringing back his late father's fictional spymaster, George Smiley, in Harkaway's new novel. It takes place between Le Coré's Cold War spy novels, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Harkaway will also talk about being Le Coré's son and choosing his own pen name. I hope you'll join us. To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our

interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPRFreshAir. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director is Audrey Bentham. Our engineer is Adam Stanaszewski. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Meyers, Ann Riebel Donato, Sam Brigger, Lauren Krenzel, Teresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Thea Challener, Susan Yacundi, and Anna Bauman. Our digital media producers are Molly C.V. Nesper and Sabrina Seaworth. Roberta Shorrock directs the show. Our co-host is Tanya Mosley. I'm Terry Gross. This message comes from NPR sponsor Grammarly. What if everyone at work were an expert communicator?

Inbox numbers would drop, customer satisfaction scores would rise, and everyone would be more productive. That's what happens when you give Grammarly to your entire team. Grammarly is a secure AI writing partner that understands your business and can transform it through better communication. Join 70,000 teams who trust Grammarly with their words and their data. Learn more at Grammarly.com. Grammarly. Easier said, done. Read about the impact of Women in Music with NPR's new book, How Women Made Music, A Revolutionary History from NPR Music.

This stunning anthology offers original writing and illustrations, interviews and photos. And the audiobook includes 52 years worth of interview excerpts with more than 60 legendary artists. Visit npr.org slash how women made music to order now. Want the latest news from the campaign trail and beyond? Well, listen to the NPR politics podcast weekly roundup. How Women Made Music to order now.