By Chris Isidore | CNN

New York – No single business leader has supported former President Donald Trump's candidacy greater than Elon Musk. But after Trump won back the presidency in Tuesday's election, there are each positives and negatives ahead for the billionaire and his business empire.

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Musk has to date donated nearly $119 million to a political motion committee he set as much as support Trump. He has appeared with Trump at rallies and conducted a fawning interview with him on X, his social media platform.

“He has put a lot into it here. He jumped into the deep end this election,” said Daniel Ives, technology analyst at Wedbush Securities.

By early Wednesday, investors were already betting that Trump's victory would even be a win for Musk's largest public holding, Tesla (TSLA), causing shares of its electric vehicle maker to instantly jump 13% at market open and end regular trading up nearly 15%. This increased the worth of the 411 million Tesla shares that Musk fully owns by greater than $15 billion, a 12,761% return on the $119 million he donated to Trump. It was a two-year high for Tesla shares, which have struggled recently and were up just 1% for the yr through Tuesday's close.

But a Trump victory also poses risks for Tesla.

Much of Musk's enormous net value is as a consequence of the federal government support his corporations like Tesla and SpaceX have received through the years. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris had won, much of that cash would have continued to flow. But even when some government support for electric vehicles is cut or eliminated now, as is prone to occur after Trump's victory, Musk's fortunes will still remain intact. In fact, Tesla may gain advantage if government support for electric vehicles ends.

What a Trump victory means for Tesla

Musk posted quite a few tweets He celebrated Trump's victory on his social media platform X late Tuesday and early Wednesday.

“The people of America gave @realDonaldTrump a crystal clear mandate for change tonight,” he wrote in certainly one of them.

Trump has openly opposed electric vehicles, saying they’re too expensive, have limited range and would destroy jobs and the American auto industry. But what might appear to be the most important blow to Tesla from one other Trump presidency — a cut, if not an end, to federal support for electric vehicles — won’t be so bad for Tesla and Musk.

But other policy areas which might be at the middle of Trump's plans could also result in major problems.

Trump has vowed to finish what he calls “Biden's EV mandate,” although there is no such thing as a such mandate and it’s unclear what he’s referring to.

But under Biden, there was significant government support for constructing and buying electric vehicles, including billions of dollars in loans to encourage automakers to take a position in factories to construct electric vehicles and batteries within the United States, support for charging stations and a federal tax credit $7,500 for a lot of electric vehicle automotive buyers.

Many industry experts consider Trump will end these programs. Trump could direct the Treasury Department to vary the principles that determine when automotive buyers are eligible for the tax credit, which might significantly limit the tax credit's availability. Or, if Trump has a Republican-controlled Congress, he could pass a law to eliminate the credit entirely.

But Musk has said he isn't apprehensive concerning the end of the tax credit because Tesla sees it as a boon to legacy automakers' efforts to maneuver into the electrical vehicle market and produce more competition.

“Take away the subsidies. “It will only help Tesla,” Musk said posted on X in July.

Due to increasing competition, Tesla's global sales fell 2% in the primary nine months of this yr in comparison with last yr. Sales and profits improved within the third quarter, even though it was the primary time in the corporate's history that there was such a decline.

Self-driving vehicle policies could change

CFRA Research analyst Garrett Nelson agreed.

“In our view, Tesla and CEO Elon Musk may be the biggest winners from the election results, and we believe Trump's victory will help accelerate regulatory approval of the company's autonomous driving technology,” he said in a note to clients and raised its suggestion on Tesla shares from “Hold” to “Buy.” He raised his 12-month price goal on the stock by $110 to $375 per share.

So far, the corporate's existing driver assistance features, often known as Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD), are under investigation by federal safety regulators after a series of accidents involving the technology. This research could slow the approval of true self-driving Tesla cars on the roads, despite Musk's widely controversial claims that Teslas with FSD are already safer than human-driven cars.

“Under Trump, these investigations could slowly disappear,” Ives said.

All federal support for electric vehicles is unlikely to vanish in Trump's next administration. Aside from the customer tax credit, much of the tax money spent to support electric vehicle adoption is available in the shape of presidency loans to automakers and their suppliers to construct plants in southern “red” states. It's unlikely that Trump would need to cut that support and the promise of jobs in those states, even in the event that they would ultimately provide competition to Musk and Tesla.

Traditional automakers say they may move forward with plans to construct and sell more electric vehicles in the longer term. They say electric vehicles are the longer term of the industry, although adoption rates have slowed recently.

“It's not a strategy where we're going to obstruct the presidential election or the next one and the next one and see what we can do with the EPA,” Ford CEO Jim Farley told investors in July. “The only way we think it's sustainable is to make money from small electric vehicles. And that’s our bet.”

Automakers are pushing to sell more electric vehicles so corporations can meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations within the United States, Europe and Asia. Even if Trump gets the EPA to vary emissions rules here, automakers will still have an incentive to proceed constructing electric vehicles to satisfy regulations elsewhere or to satisfy stricter environmental regulations in lots of U.S. states, including California, which has its own stricter ones has emissions regulations that many other states follow.

Industry experts don't expect growth in electric vehicle sales to stop even when Trump changes emissions regulations, partly as a consequence of growing consumer demand.

“We could see a much slower adoption of electric vehicles (with a change in regulations),” said Jeff Schuster, global head of automotive at GlobalData, an industry consultant. “But with all the investments, we are unlikely to see a reversal.”

Trump's China policy could harm Tesla

The greater problem for Tesla with Trump's victory is that it could lead on to a different trade war with China, Ives said, given the importance of its Shanghai factory to its global sales and profits.

With Trump's victory, “he's going to be much tougher on China, and then the negatives could outweigh the positives for Tesla,” Ives said. “Over 40% of deliveries come from the Chinese market. Tesla would be caught in the crossfire.”

And it may be an issue for Tesla if Trump taps Musk He is predicted to steer his administration's efforts to scale back so-called government waste, because the two mentioned through the campaign.

Whatever the end result of those efforts, and whether or not Musk has a proper or informal government role in Trump's latest administration, the last item Tesla investors need to see is Musk becoming much more distracted from his time as Tesla boss said Ives.

“It's more time away from Tesla while wanting to pay more attention to Tesla,” Ives said.

Less impact on SpaceX and X

Musk's other major company, SpaceX, likely wouldn’t have had a significantly different relationship with the federal government regardless of who’s elected. Its important competitor is Boeing have serious problems with spacecraft commissioned by NASA to hold astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

And Musk's ownership of X has been widely criticized, especially by Democrats, for spreading misinformation. But it has not been halted or hindered by government motion under Biden, and the brand new Trump administration is unlikely to take motion on it either. And given the financial losses since purchasing the corporate, it now represents a comparatively small portion of Musk's total net value.

The CNN Wire
& © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery company. All rights reserved.

policy

Before Donald Trump traveled to Philadelphia for this week's debate, he invited one among the web's most polarizing figures to hitch him on the trip.

Laura Loomer was backstage with Trump's entourage when Trump took on Vice President Kamala Harris. Immediately afterward, she was within the spin room with the previous president. And the following day, she flew with him to New York City and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Loomer is a far-right activist known for her never-ending stream of sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Islamic and infrequently anti-Semitic social media posts and public stunts. Over the past decade, she has made a reputation for herself by blatantly claiming that 9/11 was “an inside job,” calling Islam a “cancer,” accusing the wife of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis of exaggerating breast cancer syndrome and alleging that President Joe Biden was behind the assassination attempt on Trump in July.

Just two days before the talk, 31-year-old Loomer posted a racist joke concerning the vice chairman, whose mother was an Indian-American. Loomer wrote on X that if Harris won the election, the White House would “smell like curry.”

Many observers, including a few of Trump's key allies, found the Republican presidential candidate's decision to provide a platform to a social media instigator – albeit one with 1.3 million followers on X – at a vital moment within the campaign baffling.

“This person's past is just really toxic,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, told a HuffPost reporter on Thursday. “I don't think it's helpful at all.”

His comments were echoed by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a staunch Trump supporter. “I don't think she has the experience or the right mindset to advise on a very important presidential election,” Greene told reporters Thursday morning.

Loomer declined to comment, writing in a text message that she was “not interested in talking to the media so they can spread their conspiracies about me.” But on her favorite media outlet, X, she attacked each Greene and Graham, calling them disloyal to Trump and making a series of allegations about their personal lives.

The criticism has not dampened the candidate's enthusiasm for her. On Thursday afternoon, Trump shared a post of hers on Truth Social wherein she attempted to refute an Axios story that said Harris was outranking Trump on social media.

When asked for comment on their association with the previous president, the Trump campaign responded with a press release released Wednesday on the anniversary of 9/11 that didn’t reply to questions on their ties to Trump. “That day was about none other than the souls who are no longer with us, their families, and the heroes who bravely stepped in to save their fellow Americans on that fateful day,” the campaign statement said.

This was in no way Trump's first connection together with her.

Loomer lives in Florida and steadily attends events at Mar-a-Lago. The former president has reposted a lot of her social media posts on his own accounts. In January, she flew with him to Iowa for the state's primary. In April, The New York Times reported that Trump was considering hiring her for his campaign – a plan he only abandoned after a few of his supporters objected.

But with seven weeks left within the presidential campaign—a time when the traditional wisdom is that candidates are broadening their messaging to appeal to moderate, undecided voters—Trump's endorsement of Loomer is a transparent signal that he’s as an alternative doubling down on his efforts to support a number of the most hawkish elements of the far right.

Another signal got here on Tuesday when the Trump team arrange a “social media war room” in Philadelphia to react to the talk in real time. About 18 conservative influencers gathered in a conference room at Warwick Rittenhouse Square – the identical hotel where Harris was staying – and hammered away at Harris' every remark throughout the debate while vigorously defending Trump.

The group included Chaya Raichik, who’s behind the conservative social media account Libs of TikTok and is understood for her transphobic content and smear campaigns against schools, hospitals and libraries; Jack Posobiec, a right-wing podcaster who helped spread the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that Democratic politicians secretly ran a baby sex trafficking ring out of a Washington pizzeria; and Rogan O'Handley, best often called DC Draino, who’s a voter refusenik and vaccine skeptic.

Ahead of the event, Trump had sent each attendee a signed letter thanking them for “being a social media warrior in the fight to save our country” and adding that he looked forward to “creating viral content with you in the White House in just a few months.”

The group had a complete of about 50 million social media followers, in keeping with Alex Bruesewitz, a political consultant hired by the campaign last month. Some of them, including Posobiec and O'Handley, have also been tapped by the Republican National Committee in recent weeks to host webinars on election integrity.

Shortly before the talk began, Bruesewitz took a video call from Trump, who gave him a pep talk.

“Actually, you are more important than me because you spread it the way you want to spread it,” Trump said in a video of the decision that was later posted on social media.

It's hard to measure what influence such voices might need on Trump, and little to nothing is understood about what conversations he had with Loomer or other influencers about his campaign. But few, if any, candidates have a better relationship with their online electorate, which doesn't all the time deal with the identical issues because the broader electorate.

In the times leading as much as the talk, Loomer and most other members of Trump's social media war center posted allegations that Haitian migrants had killed and eaten pets in Springfield, Ohio.

The most shared images, created using artificial intelligence, show dogs, cats and geese being protected by Trump, in addition to other content that supports the unsubstantiated claim that the pets are being eaten. On Monday, for instance, O'Handley uploaded a picture of Trump straddling an enormous cat and holding an AR-15 rifle.

Loomer, in turn, published ads for dog collars that read “not your lunch #MAGA,” which were available for $23.28 plus shipping. Another version had the phrase “don't eat me” in Haitian Creole.

Trump's last two posts on Truth Social before the talk were AI-generated images of cats and geese; one showed cats in military uniforms carrying assault rifles and wearing MAGA hats; the opposite showed the candidate himself sitting on a plane amid a flock of geese and cats.

About 26 minutes into the talk, Trump responded to a matter about immigration by claiming that migrants were “eating the pets of people” living in Springfield.

For most of the 67 million viewers who tuned in to the talk and who didn't have as much online activity as the previous president or his supporters on social media, the comment can have been confusing. But for some who hope he shall be defeated within the election in November, the entire episode sparked a certain quantity of glee.

On Thursday, former Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) took to social media to sarcastically urge Trump to spend more time with Loomer, calling her a “perfect adviser.”

“I hope he keeps her close until the election,” she wrote. “They belong together.”

Sex, money and power – all three topics were addressed over the course of Michael Cohen's three days of testimony and cross-examination Criminal trial against former President Donald Trump. Trump is accused of illegally covering up a hush money payment to a girl alleging she had a sexual encounter with Trump; Cohen, referred to as Trump's former “fixer,” says he carried out the plan at Trump's behest.

The Conversation's senior politics and democracy editor Naomi Schalit interviewed John E. Jones IIIthe president of Dickinson College and a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush, and David E. Clementson, political communications scholar on the University of Georgia and political deception specialist. The men talked about how the jury might perceive Trump – those closed eyes could possibly be an issue, says Clementson – and whether Trump's defense made Cohen, a convicted liar, untrustworthy. The cross-examination, Jones says, “doesn’t come off as well as it could be.”

How do you’re thinking that Trump shall be viewed by the jury?

David E. Clementson: As a researcher, I conducted Experiments Testing the results of a politician's behavior. What interests me is that Trump often is that keep your eyes closed within the courtroom. It's this one easy non-verbal clue that would have a big impact on the trial and the jury.

There is a saying, “You can't not communicate.” Take, for instance, an individual on an airplane who closes his eyes when he sees the flight attendant coming down the aisle. He doesn't do or say anything – and yet he actually says quite a bit, like, “Don't talk to me.” Don't hassle me. I don't need a drink. I don’t need peanuts.”

It could possibly be a technique by Trump's lawyers to inform him to take a seat there together with his eyes closed. Otherwise, he would probably respond with not less than non-verbal ridicule through the proceedings. And that may backfire and make you seem guilty.

But keeping your eyes closed is also dangerous and maybe disastrous because people think you're primary deceptive is if you don't make eye contact and look away. This statement is intercultural, cross-linguistic and cross-ethnic. If jurors think Trump is averting his gaze, they probably think he’s deceptive.

But if the jury thinks he's communicating together with his eyes closed, just like the person on the plane who closes their eyes, it may be an exception to the rule that you might have to make eye contact to look honest. This stands out as the case if the jury feels that his mockery of the proceedings is justified.

John E. Jones III: I've read that Trump's tendency to maintain his eyes closed is a way of controlling himself so he doesn't act out. And remember, he acted consistently through the trial of E. Jean Carroll. I’m convinced, having spoken to countless jurors after trials and verdicts, that jurors don’t like parties who don’t respect the method. It makes them very uncomfortable. They are inclined to see the judge as their friend, their protector. When the judge is kicked by one party, it upsets the jury. Because of the structure of the court, they see the judge as an ally.

Michael Cohen made a vital statement this week. He is approved previously lied under oath. How should a jury and the general public evaluate his testimony?

Clementson: Cohen is reportedly one of the best witness the prosecution has, yet he is definitely discredited. We comprehend it out Social psychology and communication research This credibility largely relies on whether the audience thinks that a speaker is representing his or her own perspective or not. When a speaker presents his or her own genuinely held opinion, she or he is seen as honest and unbiased, in addition to sincere and persuasive.

But if the audience thinks that he’s controlled by external circumstances, if he’s pressured by an external situation, then he won’t be perceived as honest and convincing. Cohen illustrates this external pressure that controls his words and actions. According to his own statement, he was Trump's biggest fan; he claimed to do and say what he was told. Then he turned against Trump, so even jurors who hate Trump are prone to be suspicious of a jilted lover who was once in love with Trump.

Jones: The philosophical query, in my view, is: Can a one who repeatedly lies about countless topics figuratively change his perspective and begin telling the reality? The jury has to take care of this.

The prosecution's challenge on this case, from a judicial and legal perspective, is to corroborate Cohen's statements. I believe they did an excellent job of pre-confirming what Cohen said, as has been written about again and again. Now the cross-examination that has taken place in recent days is meant to point out not only that he’s a liar and that liars proceed to lie, but in addition that he detests Donald Trump. And as David Clementson says, he’s the kind of scorned lover in that this informs his statement.

I don't think the cross-examination comes off in addition to it could because I believe it's a bit vague in nature.

I believe the likely end result of this case at this point – given every little thing I've seen and particularly with Cohen being the ultimate prosecution witness – will either be a conviction or a partial conviction, or it is going to be a case where it The matter is a hung jury. Unless the defense pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

What does it mean for each the jury and the general public, and for the credibility of what is going on on this courtroom, that Trump will most certainly not testify?

Jones: This implies that you might have an entire series of unrefuted statements. And in fact the judge will inform the jury that the burden is on the prosecution and that it’s a burden that never shifts and that there is completely no need for the defendant to testify. The judge makes this really clear within the instructions each before and after the trial.

As a trial judge, I’d really pressure the jury in my instructions regarding a defendant's right to not testify. This is crucial to our legal system and they have to understand this and particularly that they can’t accuse a selected defendant of this because the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. And I believe most jurors have that in mind.

But because it's a matter of human curiosity, the jury would probably wish to know what Trump's version of the facts is. It's all the time a really difficult decision for the defense. It's a kind of cost-benefit evaluation based on what you get out of your defendant's testimony versus the downside. The drawback here is gigantic.

Clementson: Trump cannot testify. Point. He's an excessive amount of of a loose cannon. Everything to lose, nothing to realize.