Prof G Markets - Inside Trump's 3,700 Trades — ft. Anthony Scaramucci

Episode Date: May 19, 2026

Ed Elson speaks with Anthony Scaramucci about President Trump’s latest disclosures for trading on companies like Nvidia, Oracle, Microsoft, and Boeing. Then, Mike Isaac joins the show to discuss the Musk v. Altman verdict. Finally, Ed shares his take on the growing backlash to AI-themed commencement speeches. Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital. Mike Isaac is the technology correspondent for the New York Times. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does it take to be prepared for disaster? You have to be confident. You have to be calm. Will you be perfect? No. But the idea is that you'll have your bearings, and this won't be something new to you. This week, unexplain it to me,

how to stay ready so you don't have to get ready. New episode Sundays wherever you get your podcasts. For years, if you ran a media company, you obsessed about Google, because Google could send a fire hose of traffic your way, but now things are changing fast. So last year, I told all of our teams, you need to plan your businesses around there being no search. And if you don't have a plan for that, you may not have a business. I think it was very effective. That's Roger Lynch, the CEO of Condé

NAS, the home of fabled magazines like The New Yorker and Vogue. And if you want to hear how Lynch is thinking about Google and AI companies and who's going to replace his most famous editors, good news. You can hear all of that on channels with Peter Kafka. That's out now everywhere. Hey everybody, Sue Bird here. This week on a Touchmore, I'm celebrating the start of the WMBA by breaking down what I saw an opening weekend. And we have NBC's one and only Maria Taylor to talk about her boundary-breaking career in sports journalism, the NBA playoffs, and her thoughts on which teams have the best chance of making the WMBA finals. Check out the latest episode of A Touch More, wherever you get your podcasts, and on YouTube. If money is evil, then that building is held.

Show goes up! Welcome to Profi Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is May 19th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The S&B 500 and the NASDAQ closed in the red after a volatile session. The Dow turned positive after President Trump said he called off plans to strike Iran. Tuesday. He also said, quote, serious negotiations are now taking place. Brent crude declined from a session high of $112 after those comments. Meanwhile, while the yield on 10-year treasuries hit a 52-week high. Okay, what else is happening? President Trump disclosed more than 3,700 trades on major American companies during the first quarter. That's more than 40 trades each day, with the transactions valued somewhere between $220 and $750 million.

Trump bought at least $1 million each in Nvidia, Oracle, Microsoft, Boeing, Costco, among others, and many of those trades were made around the same time the U.S. made policy decisions affecting those very companies. The White House insists that there are, quote, no conflicts of interest involved, but ethics, experts, and Wall Street insiders say the sheer volume of trading is unusual and unprecedented for a sitting president. So, here to discuss these transactions and what this all means. We're speaking with Anthony Scaramucci, be the mooch, founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital. Anthony, thank you so much for joining us on the show.

We've had you on to discuss this before, which to me tells me something about what's happening here, which is this is becoming sort of an ongoing theme. But now we're hearing them or we're seeing that the Trump administration is basically just admitting, yes, we did trade these companies. And we can get into whether it's insider trading or not. Hard to make a case that it isn't. But let's just start with your initial reactions to this news. Well, you know, listen, I mean, this is the reason why everyone hates Washington.

They hate politics. It's a bipartisan thing, by the way. I'm not trying to whitewash Donald Trump. This has gone on with Democrats in the House. They get inside information. They're able to trade on it. Trump is at a point in his career where he actually doesn't care anymore. He just got himself a $1.7 billion, I don't know what it's called, a lawfare restitution fund or something like that from the IRS.

I don't even know if that's constitutional. And hopefully there's somebody that has standing that can actually challenge that, quote unquote, settlement, which just seems completely unethical and misguided. But, you know, I guess there's three things I want to say. Number one, it's disgusting. thing. It's probably legal, Ed. That's the irony of the whole thing. It created these loopholes for themselves. But it's absolutely disgusting. And it makes people very cynical and very turned off by politics. Number two, I think this is probably the most important thing about it is he doesn't care, which means that worse things are on the way. You're going to see a tsunami of corruptive

activity over the next two and a half years and it's going to be put right in your face. And then the last thing, and this is the thing I really don't like, is there's nobody out there that you can point to and say, oh, that's an ethical player. Because let me tell you what happens here. They put a situation together and then they say, well, Hunter Biden sold a painting. Nancy Pelosi traded this stock. That Democrat did this. this person did that. Oh, you know, is Trump going to pardon every one of his family members and himself on the way out?

Well, most certainly is. Well, Hunter Biden was pardoned by his dad, Joseph Biden. So, you know, this is as swampy as swamp gets, but I just want to remind the Profi markets listeners, this is not actually as a swamp. This is a gold-plated hot tub, Washington, D.C. And they get into the hot tub together. and they pass the Cristol and they pass the Cubanoes, which happened to be illegal, and they light them up and they laugh. And then they say, this is so fantastic, how do I stay in the job for the longest amount of time possible? And if you want to have a fun exercise on Chad GBT or Claude, just ask Claude to go through the 435 members of the Congress, 100 senators, and say, what were the disclosed net worths before? They became senator or congressman or woman, and what are they now? And you'll see that this is a very lucrative place called Washington, D.C. for these people. Should I want to go back to the thing you said earlier that it's probably legal?

There are some moments where I can see that, like, just as an example. So what we learned here is that between January and March, Trump bought a bunch of Palantir. And then what we also know is that in April, he put out, this post on social media where he was praising Palantir. And I thought the funniest thing is that he specifically mentioned the ticker for Palant of PLTR. He explicitly said that, which was obviously him pumping the stock. But when you think about is that inside a trading, I feel like, okay, maybe you can make an argument that he's not trading on material non-public information. He's just pumping a stock, essentially. Like on a situation like that, I can see how maybe it's a gray zone. But there are

some other examples here that, to me, are just plain illegal, starting with, for example, Nvidia, January 6th, he buys up to a million dollars worth of Nvidia stock, and then January 14th, just a few days later, he approves Nvidia to start selling chips to China. That to me is like, okay, that's a very big deal. Similar thing happens, January 12th, he buys a bunch of Oracle stock. a week later, the deal for Oracle to buy a stake in TikTok is finalized. And of course, the only reason is finalized is because he approves it, his administration approves it. Similar thing with Boeing, he buys Boeing stock, and then he says that China is going to purchase all these Boeing jets. Like, there are several examples here where it seems very, very plainly

obvious that he had very important material, non-public information. And this is just the way that the law talks about it. And then before that happens, he goes in a he buys the stock. And so in those cases, to me, I'm thinking, that's just illegal. That, right there. If you can prove that he knew something, then he's got to go to jail or he's got to be punished in some way. Okay. Who's going to punish him, it? Which is an interesting point, but a different one. Well, but I mean, okay, so, you know, there's, but there's, let's, let's parse everything out because I think people need to understand this. There's a 2012 stock act, which prohibits some of this activity for members of Congress,

it does not, for whatever reason, prohibit the president or the vice president. So the Palantir example that you used, believe it or not, is inside the ambit of the law. Okay, he's buying Palantir and then posting about it from an official governmental capacity as president of the United States. The second one that you brought up is probably illegal. There's a statute if you went to law school like I do. There's a statute called 10B5, which delineates what insider trading is. And if you read the statute, the president is actually included in that statute. And so he's right now guilty of insider trading.

Okay, so the SEC commissioner, he stands at the appointment of the president, at the leisure of the president, as does the attorney general, who's now acting, who was his personal attorney. So go ahead. Who's going to prosecute the guy? Go ahead. This is the part that I agree with you on, which is that it's illegal, but he's gotten rid of the police. He's gotten rid of the SEC. He's gotten rid of the DOJ. Well, okay, so then the real question is, and this is why people listen to your podcast, we're delineating between what's right and wrong, and then we're saying, okay, then what would you do?

Right. Okay. And this is where the Moody Gillibrand Senate bill, the Roy magazine or House version of that bill. would include everybody. Okay. And then the question is, well, will they pass that? Well, Peter Schweitzer, way back in 2010, exposed all of this nefarious behavior. There was a 60 minutes special about it.

And the Congress said, oh, this is despicable behavior. We're going to denounce it. And we're going to prohibit it. And then they did that. And then very quietly, nine months after they did that, they get a voice vote. They get a voice vote. so it wouldn't be on the airwaves. It wouldn't be on C-SPAN.

And they did a voice vote call into this number. Ed, we're going to vote to reinstate it. And they voted to reinstate it. Yeah. And they got right back in the running to do this. So this is stuff that's going to continue unless you're telling me somebody comes in with an omnibus ethics act, equivalent to the 1978 ethics and government act, which technically revises everything, but then you're going to have to put independent watchdogs

and special prosecutors in permanent place, or you're going to have to take the Department of Justice out of the executive branch. It's in the Constitution that it would be in the executive branch, so I think that that's very tough to do. And so then you've got to say to yourself, well, what will the next president do he or she? Will they take Trump's playbook and say,

wow, I mean, I got the job. We're going to make $4 to $10 billion And over the next four years, let me just go to section four of Trump's playbook. I'll start buying Apple and tweeting about it. Yeah. Or you pick the stock. You see what I'm saying? Yes.

We haven't even gotten into the Bitcoin and crypto stuff that these guys have done, right? Which is even more egregious. And I'm obviously a crypto enthusiast, but they've hurt the industry there because they're staining the industry with this unethical activity. Right. So, you know, the bottom line is this is going to happen. Okay. The bottom line is for your viewers and listeners, life is unfair. And these guys are sitting there ladling money into their own accounts for their own self-interest. And it would be hypocritical of me, Ed, if I just went after the president on this. You have to go after the Democrats that are also doing this. This is a bipartisan thing. Now, you can say, and this almost makes me laugh about Trump. And if Galloway was on with us right now, he would laugh at this. because I know the son of a bitch,

Prof. G. would be like, yeah, no, he's right. Trump is doing it to the 29th power compared to these guys. Okay, so if Pelosi's taken $5 million, Trump's taken $500 million. Yes. And so all he's done is pumped himself with unethical steroids. He took the unethical steroid needle. He pumped it into his biceps,

and he's out there making billions of dollars for himself. But they're all doing it, Ed. Yes. And I think it would be, remiss of us to pretend that it's not happening on both sides. Well, I think what he's done now is he's normalized it, for one, and maybe you'd argue that it's been normalized for a while, but he's made it maybe publicly normalized.

I mean, this has been very much shameless and for all to see, and so far he's gotten away with it. But I think the other side to this is like, there's the distinction between what is legal and what is illegal. And if he knew things before he made these trades, and of course he did because he's the president, and then a week later he announces these decisions, which massively affect the trajectory of these businesses. So, I mean, you've got to do a lot of legwork to pretend like he didn't know what was going on. So let's just assume he did.

That's illegal. But to your point, who's going to prosecute this? And just some statistics here to really illustrate the point here. Trump cut the headcount at the DOJ by 4,000, and white-collar crime prosecutions at the DOJ have hit a record low. SEC enforcement actions are down 30% this year. It's the lowest transition year in a decade. The old enforcement director who tried to investigate him was dismissed because she tried to investigate him. That was literally what was reported among the SEC. CFTC headcounts cut, headcounts been cut by a fifth. Enforcement actions are down 80%. IRS headcounts down 25%.

The global high wealth division has been almost cut in half. Audit rates are collapsing, et cetera, et cetera. And it seems to me that what he's done that's taken things to another level of, he said, I'm going to continue to do things that are illegal, but I'm going to make it so that there's no one out there who can prosecute me. The agencies whose job it is to go after this kind of crime, I'm going to make it impossible for them to do their job, and I'm going to fire anyone who tries to do it.

And that, to me, is a different level. Can I add a sentence to everything you just said? Please. And if there's some wise guy to use Trump's own words that would try to prosecute me and they came close to it, I would pardon myself. Right. And as quoted by the Wall Street Journal, if you're in 200 feet of the Oval Office, you're going to receive a pardon from me. You know, Corey Lewandowski said, hey, do whatever I want. I'm going to get pardoned.

The family's certainly going to get pardoned. Hunter Biden got pardoned. Yeah. And so even if you are bold enough to prosecute me, I'm going to pardon myself. Now, there is a remedy. There is one remedy, which will never, ever, ever happen. But the remedy would be impeachment. Okay.

And what would happen under a normal system is people say, okay, this is ball face immoral and it's illegal. We have to set a message to the American people that we have some honest accountability in the government. So we're going to impeach the guy. Jack Schlossberg, who is JFK's grandson, has a cheeky book coming out called Profiles in Cowardous. It's the reverse of his grandfather's book, Profiles in Courage. And so if you remember the Kennedy book from the 1950s, he took 14 people who broke from their parties to do something principled in the Congress. And then people laughed at it. I mean, won the Pulitzer Prize, and they said, well, Senator Kennedy, this book is so short. and he said, well, look, if I was writing profiles and cowardice, it would be the size of a phone book.

Okay, he was only dismiss it, right? That was a big Kennedy line back in the 50s, but now Schlossberg is writing a book, profiles and cowardice. It won't be phone book size, though it should be. But, you know, John Thune would have to answer for this. Mitch McConnell would have to answer for this. You know, but here's what happens. Bill Cassidy, everybody on this show knows who he is. He's the senator from Louisiana.

He lost the primary vote last weekend, Saturday night. And so he's now been ousted effectively from the Senate. He's not going to be able to seek re-election. Bill Cassidy voted to convict Donald Trump in the second impeachment trial. And so even though he's squared that off by voting with the president each time in the 16 months since Donald Trump has returned to the White House, the Trump people and Trump himself went after Bill. Cassidy and he lost his primary. So you've got a situation now where they should impeach him. He should have been removed from office just because of the war crime. He's telling people on Easter

Sunday that he's going to wipe out a civilization. That, you know, the threat is a war crime. Just want to make sure everybody knows that if you threaten to wipe out a civilization, if you look at the Hague and the statues, that's a war crime. You don't have to actually wipe out the civilization. That's locker room talk, I thought. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so he's committed to war crime. No one's going to prosecute him.

No senators picking up the phone and saying, hey, asshole, you're making the country look bad. Could you please stop doing that? You're not going to do it. And by the way, he won in Indiana two weeks ago. He ousted five mainstream Republicans. Okay. He knocked out Crenshaw. He's given corn in a hard time in.

Texas, knocked out Crenshaw, is not going to be able to seek re-election. He just took out Cassidy. There's going to be a big fight over Tom Massey this week as to whether or not he can knock him out as well. And so he has been incredibly good at meleeing and taking out his adversary. So guess what? We just got done telling you how lucrative it is to stay in the Congress. Hey pal, Ed Elson, Anthony Scaramucci, bye-bye, I'm staying in the Congress. I'm not prosecuting this guy, let him do whatever the hell he wants. Yeah. And so that's a stain on the American system. The country that you came from, they would, this, it'd be long ago. You think Kier Stormer could be trading his personal account?

This is what is so shocking to me, because this does seem, I'm glad you bring up impeachment. Maybe it's because we follow markets on this show, but this to me seems like the most clearly impeachable offense. And just to lay it out for people what's happened, this is just the latest in this headline, in these insider trading scandals. We had Liberation Day last year, where minutes before he tacos, the S&P Options Trading spikes 2,000% in an hour. We had two months ago

where more than half a billion dollars in oil futures changed hands 15 minutes before he said he was engaging in talks with Iran. Also, one and a half billion dollars' worth of S&P futures were also traded. You also had his children investing in these drone startups right before we went to war. You mentioned the crypto, Trump coin gets released,

58 wallets take home over a billion dollars, carefully timing the sales of those coins. You had Melania coin, 24 wallets, bought that token minutes before it was even announced. They made $100 million. You've got the prediction markets, the polymarket account that made $400,000, betting on the timing of the Maduro Auster. You've got another one that made half a million betting on the timing of killing Ayatollah Hamenei. Like, it goes on and on and on and on. And this is just one little update.

And what I don't understand is why aren't people? more outraged about this? Is it because it's confusing? Is it because it's like financing and complex? I mean, this to me, this is it. You know the answer. You know the answer. You're asking me the question, but you really, down deep, you know the answer. You know that if you are going to take the KGB's approach to spying, you're going to do everything out in the open. And if you're going to take the Donald Trump approach to corruption, you're going to do everything out in the open. You're going to make it so ridiculous and you're going to make it so inundating that people's heads will be spinning and then they get numb to it. And then once they're

numb to it, you keep doing it. You know, the allegations that were made in the Epstein files and the disgusting behavior of these people in the Epstein files are an atrocity. Yet Donald Trump masterfully figured out either through a war or other means, who bury the news and bury the lead on those files. And now Thomas Massey's up for a political fight of his life. He was for producing those files. But when you go down the list of things that voters care about, guess what? The Epstein files are at the bottom of the list.

They want jobs. Yeah. And they want affordable jobs where, I mean, excuse me, they want jobs that will allow them to afford their lifestyle. And they want low gas prices. Okay. And so Trump's corruption is not even on their radar screen, and he knows that. And he also knows that he's figured out the wormhole in the system where he can exploit the system.

But do not underestimate him. He is a very formidable politician. He's got 34, 35 percent approval ratings lower than Herbert Hoover. But he's got nine out of ten. and in some areas of the country, Ed, he's got 10 out of 10 of the people that see themselves as Republicans. And so he says bark, they say Ruth, he said jump. How high, sir? Well, I want you to jump and vote against Bill Cassidy, done.

I want you to vote against Thomas Massey. Done. Okay. But here's the irony of what he's doing, okay, because such a narcissist, he's weakening the Republican Party. Yeah. Because Cassidy's gone now. You lost all that seniority. If Massey leaves, well, you've lost all of his seniority, and they're replaced by weaker, less influential Republicans.

Okay, but they're doing that to serve Trump's narcissism. See, so you have to put this whole thing in the cauldron and say, my God, you want to talk about life being unfair. Donald Trump took a system of genteel practices. He took a system of gentlemen and gentlewoman's agreements where nothing was specifically. delineated and he steamrolled over it. Okay? Because you don't have a codified law that says the president cannot do blank, blank, blank, blank, blank. The president, if he does bump, blah, he gets ejected like a villain in the Jason Martin and James Boncourt. No, that doesn't happen to the president. You see, you see what I'm saying? And so he said, oh, this is great. I'm going to run rough shot over this whole system. I'm going to annihilate everybody in the system. And his family

members are telling, look, we expect to be the richest family in the world when we leave. Yes. And so we've got a lot more to do in the next two and a half years. And oh, by the way, let me put up all these disclosures right now, because Ed Ellison and Anthony Scaramucci will talk about it. Pompwopwop, wah, wah, wah, wah, like the, you know, the Charlie Brown teacher. And what difference does it make? I'll be locked and loaded doing this. And no matter who lights their on fire and outrage, not going to matter. And that's where we are right now. So the next president, hopefully, will say, okay, I've got to weaken myself and I've got to

weaken the presidency to make the system stronger again. Yes. You know, it's what Cicero once said 2400 years ago. We are slaves to the law in order to be free. 2200 years ago. But you get the point. Yes. You want to subordinate yourself to the process that you're not.

the checks and balances of the system because that means less cronyism, less corruption, less of a funnel at the top of illegality, right? Can I make one last point? I know we have to hop, but I want to make one last point. Please.

Think about the willing billionaire sycophants, right? These guys are all motivated by money more than anything else, other there wouldn't be billionaires, and they're sitting around saying, hey, man, I'm paying the piper here. Yeah. If I pay the piper, he's going to lay off my business.

Okay, Jeff Bezos was coming at him in first term. Not doing that. I have a $40 million documentary on the wife. Yeah. We're going to pay for the wall. We're going to pay for the ballroom. No problem. They'll get on the plane with him to China.

What do I got to give to the pack? No problem. Conspicuously absent from that plane ride was Jamie Diamond. Jamie Diamond said, I'm not playing ball with the ballroom. I'm not doing this. What did Trump do? He sued him. Sue in the bank.

Right? And he didn't make the plane ride. Frazier from Citibank made the prime right? Yeah. City Group. My point is he's got all of those people between a rock and a hard place. Because they're like, shit, if I don't cowtow to him, he's going to hurt my shareholders, he's going to hurt my image, he's going to hurt me with my own board. So I'm going to cowtow to the guy.

And Trump understands that as well. He's used every mechanism in his game, and he's exploited every. mechanism, and there's very few people at that level that are like, you know, I'm going to pass on that trip to China. Oh, you know, I don't want to be in the great hall hanging out with Xi and the Chinese. They're all looking at each other, and they're doing that, you know, manifestation of cognitive dissidents, and they're saying, hey, I got to go. It's best for my country. It's best for my business. It's best for me. Best for my shareholders, too. Just one last final question before you go here. now you have to hop, but

I mean, it seems as though say the Democrats win. I sort of feel you could have a lot more hair. Have you let that grow out? I mean, I could send you some of my hair products. A lot of people want that. I'm just letting me grow out. I got some great product for you, you know.

Well, I'm going to need to get your product. You just send me the mooch kit. I just want to point out, people are looking, say, hey, the kid has more hair than he's letting on. But go ahead, Elson. What were you going to say? If the Democrats win in the next cycle, if we have a Democratic president, it seems that a lot of people are thinking that maybe what we'll see is that someone will go after Trump and prosecute him once he's out of power, essentially. He'll go after all the insider, trading to go after his family.

Do you think that's going to happen? Well, of course, it's not going to happen. They may want it to happen, but he's going to pardon himself. And he's going to pardon all of them. But once he's out, once he's out, I'm saying. I'm saying let's go when he's no longer president. My point being... I hereby pardon myself for any crime that I could be accused of from 1946, the day of my birth, until January 20th, 20209.

I am exonerated from every single crime, IRS audits, any crime that I've ever perpetrated, I have pardoned myself and I've pardoned every one of my family. members. So now what are you going after? So if he makes a crime on the 21st of January, 2009, you can go after that. But what are you going after? You see, this is the thing that has people upset because you want there to be some form of accountability. Now, at that point, you could say, oh, okay, well, the state attorney generals are going to go after them because he can't pardon himself at the state level. Yeah, good luck to that. Good luck to that. Anthony Scaramucci has founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital, and he will also be joining us on tour in New York for our live Profi Markets show June 2nd. I can't wait. I'm so excited to have you. By the way,

I finally look cool to my adult kids, Ed. They passed on to me some Instagram promotion of this whole thing. There we go. There we go. We're going to have them in the crowd. I'm trying to get a hair product sponsorship for Prop G Markets, man. I would love that. Bring it to the show. Bring it to the show and I'll put it on stage. some hair products. Gallaway's hopeless. You can't forget about him. He's done. He's done. Not going to happen. We can only bring bronzer. That's it for him.

But we can help you. I'd love to have your bronzer. Okay. I think it's Garamucci. Really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Good to be on, brother. After the break, Elon loses in court. And by the way, we are heading out on tour next week. So for more info and to get tickets to a show near you, head to ProfiMarktiemarketsor.com.

Instacart knows that some people go bananas about getting the perfect, well, banana. Some want them green, some want them ripe, some want them ready right when they hit their doorstep. But with Instacart's preference picker, available at most retailers, you can choose to get your groceries just the way you like. That means perfectly right bananas, deli meat sliced just the way you want, and avocados that aren't still hard as a puck in the third period. So don't cross your fingers and hope for the best. Download the app and get groceries just how you like with Instacart.

Hi, I'm Maria Sharpova, host of the Pretty Tough podcast. Each episode, I sit down with high-achieving women to discuss the pursuit of excellence without apology. This week, journalist Dean at USC and now, along with her husband Bob Iger, owner the Angel City FC women's soccer team. Willow Bay. I said, Bob, are you interested in doing this? And he said, absolutely. But I was definitely the driving force, I think, in the conviction about Angel

City. Check out pretty tough, new episodes on Wednesdays. You can watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app. Complex and unprecedented, the Spanish authorities are calling it. Before the disembarked aboard the Hanta or maybe Hanta virus-stricken Dutch cruise ship disembarked in the Canary Islands this weekend, prompting the highest stakes game of where are they now since maybe COVID? Some of the evacuees, American and French, have since tested positive for the virus, and yet public health officials seem remarkably calm. We do have one individual who was taken to the biocontainment unit early, early this morning, and we assessed that individual. They are doing well. Possibly because this is not the one to freak out over.

Today, Explain drops every weekday afternoon. We're back with Profi Markets. A federal jury has unanimously rejected Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, ending the drama-filled legal feud. Musk had alleged that OpenAI, quote, stole a charity when it converted to a for-profit, but after less than two hours of deliberations, the jurors ruled that the statute of limitations had expired. This means that Open AI and Microsoft,

which was also named as a defendant, are not liable for Musk's claims. Here to discuss this verdict, we're speaking with Mike Isaac, the New York Times, technology correspondent, who was in the courtroom, At the trial, he has gone back to his microphone to tell us what happened at the trial.

Mike, thank you so much for joining us. What did happen? What did we learn? What have we learned indeed? I feel like it's one of those scenarios where we're kind of back to where we started. We've hit the status quo, which is that, you know, Musk filed this lawsuit in 2024. It took a few years to get to court. A number of lawyers when we were covering this trial basically asked why did it get to court?

because why did it actually make it to trial because of this statute of limitations issue? But, and ultimately that was what undid Musk, what the jury found unanimously, by the way, was that Musk waited too long to file his claims and thereby, you know, basically struck all the rest of the claims in his lawsuit because of that, because he wasn't able to meet that burden. Yeah, unanimously and within two hours, which I found quite strict. I mean, quick-as-easy decision. And so it sounds like, I mean, just this statute of limitations,

that basically what they're saying is, you knew that this was a non-profit that was transitioning into a for-profit for a long time. You didn't sue then, but you decided to sue now, so we don't really believe that it was a problem. Am I getting that right? Yeah, 100%. And that was really a bulk of the evidence

in discovery that the Open AI side brought up was, you know, God love ancient emails that people like say as much as possible that were brought up in this trial. And it was, it was a lot of stuff that Musk or some of his sort of counterparts, including Chabon Zillis, who was his, uh, who was working for him now as the mother to four of his children was on the open eye board. And she knew about this transition. So like as far back as like 2017, 2018, these emails go. reasonable person, according to the jury, would determine that Musk probably had knowledge long before the deadline around 2021 that he would have had to make his lawsuit.

Right. So in a sense, he's basically just suing because he wants to harm a competitor, and that's what the jury decided in a matter of hours. I guess the question then becomes, what happens next? I assume Elon will appeal, because I just assume, People always appeal these days. What are the next stages? Yeah, I know that's a good assumption. And we were in the courtroom in the hallway, outside of the courtroom in the hallway, sort of trying to catch up with the attorneys.

And Mark Tobrov, who was lead counsel for Musk, turns around and literally says to us, one word, appeal, right? And so they're obviously going to appeal. I think the other thing that was left undetermined but is unlike, is unlike. to go to trial. There were also claims in must suit about potential antitrust issues around Microsoft. And what he said was Microsoft behaving anti-competitively by investing in this company and because of their size, basically, like trying to quash AI competition. The judge said it was unlikely that she would allow that to go, especially because she dismissed the case on the spot after the jury found opening eye not liable, but they're still going to discuss that and TBD on whether she actually

dismisses that, basically. So it seems like opening eyes kind of got a clear path at this point. They're on their way to the IPO. This wasn't going to be a real obstacle. But one question going into this trial and during the trial, there was a sense in which this wasn't so much a legal battle as much as a reputational battle. And I believe, Elon said that, this is essentially my way of trying to take you down and make everyone hate you, as someone who was there, who would you say won that battle of reputation who came out looking worse? I think it's a great point, and I think it's also really a lot of what Musk's case rested on,

because, in my opinion, Open AI, had a strong case just purely on the statute of limitation stuff, and that was like the main thing they needed to hammer it. home for the jury because, like, that would be the whole ballgame once you find that he had expired. The statute of limitations had expired. So Musk had basically gone all in on ripping Altman, Sam Altman apart, you know, essentially digging up as much old evidence or pointing jurors to this New Yorker article that Ronan Farrow wrote a few weeks ago. Like, it's just really tarring and feathering Sam in the court of public opinion. And when Sam was on the state, we're sorry, it was on the Stan being questioned by Musk's attorney, Stephen Molo, it was brutal. His first question up was,

are you trustworthy? And... Not a good question to be asked. I know. And Sam's like, I think so. And then immediately they went after, I'm going for the jungle. Whoa, you think so? You're not fully drunk. So it was, it was really a, I thought it was a referendum on their personalities. And I think they both came out looking pretty bad, to be perfectly honest. I think this, whoever won, there was some dirt thrown, mud thrown at both of each other, and it's going to be hard for that to get off of them, especially with all the new evidence that's now in the public. All right. Mike Isaac, technology correspondent for the New York Times. Mike, thank you so much for joining us. I mean, we'll see how this story

unfold. I'm not sure what else there is to unfold, but I assume we'll get the appeal. I assume you don't think it's going to work. I doubt it. I would say, yeah, exactly. Like, judges typically, because this judge upheld the jury's findings, judges down the line don't typically like to overturn this stuff. But hey, who knows in this world? We'll see. Mike Isaac, take correspondent for the New York Times. Thank you so much. Thanks. I appreciate it. It's graduation season, which means commencement speeches. And this year, most of their speeches have revolved around one topic and one topic only. What was it? You guessed it. AI. AI was all over commencement ceremonies this year. It was the main theme of Carnegie Mellon's commencement,

where Jensen Huang spoke, also Northeastern and Notre Dame and UVA, where I actually went to watch my sister graduate. Congrats to her. But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is how students have reacted to these speeches about AI. I will come. to the chase, they have not reacted well. This is what happened when the commencement speaker at the University of Central Florida started talking about AI. The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution. And this is what happened at Middle Tennessee State University

when their commencement speaker mentioned AI. AI is rewriting production as we sit here. deal with it. Like I said, it's a tool. And this is what happened at the University of Arizona when former Google CEO Eric Schmidt started talking about AI. It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory, every person and every relationship you have. I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you.

There is a fear. In some, young people hate AI. And this can also be proven statistically. 54% of 18 to 29-year-old Americans say they feel pessimistic about AI. 55% say it's unlikely AI will create economic gains that benefit everyone. And 60% say they are worried about AI taking jobs. And by the way, who can blame them? because not only have tens of thousands of work has been laid off this year in the name of AI,

but it's also become a point of pride for companies to lay off tens of thousands of workers this year in the name of AI. In other words, unless you are a significant investor in this technology, which young people aren't, well, then it's very hard to root for it. As we've said before, AI is about to become the single most important political issue of our time. And if those commencement speeches are any indication of what's to come, well, then one thing is for certain. The political future of AI is not looking too bright. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson and engineered by Benjamin Spencer.

Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Profi Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.