Topline:
From space travel to military operations to the future of green energy, the U.S. has become reliant on Elon Musk's business empire. That means it won't be easy for the government to end its reliance on Musk.
Why it matters: Musk's close ties to President Trump are unraveling in public in dramatic fashion — and Trump has suggested saving billions by cutting contracts with Musk's companies.
Keep reading... for a look at what might be next.
"If I cared about subsidies," Elon Musk said in 2015, "I would have entered the oil and gas industry."
Yet the history of Musk's business empire tells another story.
Musk's companies have long been fueled by taxpayer money, whether in the form of massive government contracts, low-interest loans, tax breaks and other support that helped make Musk one of the world's richest people.
Over the past two decades, companies run by Musk have received tens of billions of dollars in federal backing.
One tally, by The Washington Post, found that at least $38 billion in government support has been funneled to Musk's companies, an estimate that likely undercounts the breadth of support since some defense and intelligence contracts are not publicly available.
In turn, the U.S. government has become reliant on Musk, from space travel, to national security to the future of green transportation.
So when President Trump on Thursday threatened to end Musk's government subsidies and contracts in a spiraling feud between the former political allies, it was greeted with some skepticism.
Musk's companies have become inextricably tied to the federal government, particularly SpaceX's crucial role in the U.S. space program.
The company's rockets now provide the only way for U.S. astronauts to get to and from the International Space Station.
"While their political partnership appears to be at an end, it is difficult to imagine the government canceling SpaceX contracts anytime soon," said Dan Grazier, senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center, a think tank focused on national security.
"It will be some time before any of the company's competitors will be able to take up the slack, so it looks like the president and the tech mogul will have to find a way to get along," he said.
It's unclear if Musk was trolling or being serious, but he responded to Trump's threats by saying SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft, which has been used for years to ferry crews and cargo to the space station.
In fact, there are now astronauts at the station. They were taken there by a SpaceX capsule.
Walking away from the federal government would strand those crew members and complicate the Trump administration's goal of landing astronauts on the moon in the coming years.
Later on Thursday, Musk appeared to backtrack, writing on X: "OK, we won't decommission Dragon."
SpaceX is also building hundreds of spy satellites for the Pentagon, Reuters reported in March, work that, if abandoned, could have national security implications and prompt a backlash from the intelligence community.
In addition, SpaceX's Starlink satellite network is a player in a multibillion-dollar federal effort to expand internet access to underserved parts of the country.
Ukraine has also relied heavily on Starlink services since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of the country in 2022, leading top Pentagon officials to coordinate directly with Musk, The New Yorker has reported.
Tesla, the biggest electric vehicle company in the U.S. (which also controls the country's largest charging network), has been a major beneficiary of federal support.
That's likely to change under the massive congressional reconciliation bill being championed by Trump.
The version of the bill passed by the House would chop consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles and slash federal funding for charging stations.
While auto industry experts view those cuts as hurting legacy automakers more than Tesla, Trump accused Musk of not supporting the bill because it gutted subsidies for electric vehicles.
Musk has previously opposed the EV tax credits, viewing them as mostly benefiting his competitors, but he changed his tune as Tesla's profits and sales plummeted globally since Musk began overseeing mass layoffs and other shake-ups to the federal government through the cost-cutting unit, the Department of Government Efficiency.
The end of federal programs aimed at growing the EV sector would not damage Tesla as severely as other problems the automaker is confronting, said John Helveston, a professor at George Washington University who studies the electric vehicle industry.
"Musk hasn't done Tesla any favors by taking extremely unpopular actions in his time at DOGE, and globally the business is struggling from other decisions, like focusing on the Cybertruck instead of releasing more new practical models that consumers actually want," he said. "In the European Union, sales are down heavily from the political damage, and sales in China are down from intense competition of very competitive Chinese EVs."
During the Biden administration, Congress devoted billions of dollars to expand electric vehicle charging stations nationwide. A major pillar of this plan was having Tesla make its chargers compatible with other vehicles, something Tesla agreed to in exchange for a slice of the federal funds. That plan has been halted by the Trump administration, even before Congress tried to pass the Trump-backed tax policy bill that would roll back support for EVs even more.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, an associate dean at the Yale School of Management, said further pain for Tesla could eventually plunge Musk's riches.
"Tesla is hugely reliant on federal largesse for the build-out of EV charging infrastructure, not to mention federal regulatory approval for his continued autonomous driving and robotics experiments," Sonnenfeld said.
"His wealth is highly precarious," he said, noting that most of Musk's fortune is tied to his stake in Tesla. "The reality is that Musk's position is far weaker than many realize."
The acrimonious Trump-Musk implosion on Thursday came only months after Trump transformed the driveway of the White House's South Lawn into a Tesla showroom, and after the White House tapped Starlink to help expand internet across the White House campus.
Both were performative gestures that crystalized the billionaire's cozy relationship with the president, who was willing to shill for Musk after he dished out more than a quarter-billion dollars to support Trump's run for president.
So will the Trump-Musk breakup cut the opposite way and inflict pain on Musk's companies?
Paul Levinson, a professor at Fordham University, said perhaps it will lead to more short-term stock market drops for Tesla and a hit to his wealth. But even if some of the federal money that flows to Musk's business empire disappears, it will not likely hamper the billionaire in the long run, he said.
"Musk has ample resources to sustain those losses, reshuffle and rebuild his companies and holdings, and come out ahead and on top," Levinson said. "Bottom line: if all the Trump government does in its feud with Musk is attack his financial interests, Musk is very likely to not only survive but continue to thrive."
Copyright 2025 NPR
Topline:
Less than 24 hours before season opener, longtime Dodgers fans demand the team divest from immigration detention centers and decline the White House visit.
More details: More than 30 people joined Richard Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. “We are demanding that the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together we have the power to make a change.”
The backstory: The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.
Read on ... for more on how some fans are feeling leading up to Opening Day.
This story first appeared on The LA Local.
Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium.
“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.
Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.
More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team.
“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”
Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”
Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.
In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers.
“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said.
Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.
The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants.
In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.
The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.
When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a “slap in the face.”
“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”
According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.
“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”
The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place.
Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.
“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.
Topline:
The warmer weather and high water flow are causing an early outbreak of black flies in the San Gabriel Valley, according to officials.
What are black flies? Black flies are tiny, pesky insects that often get mistaken for mosquitoes. The biting flies breed near foothill communities like Altadena, Azusa, San Dimas and Glendora. They also thrive near flowing water.
What you need to know: Black flies fly in large numbers and long distances. When they bite both humans and pets, they aim around the eyes and the neck. While the bites can be painful, they don’t transmit diseases in L.A. County.
A population spike: Anais Medina Diaz, director of communications at the SGV Mosquito and Vector Control District, told LAist that at this time last year, surveillance traps had single-digit counts of adult black flies, but this year those traps are collecting counts above 500.
So, why is the population growing? Diaz said the surge is unusual for this time of year.
“We are experiencing them now because of the warmer temperatures we've been having,” Diaz said. “And of course, all the water that's going down through the river, we have a high flow of water that is not typical for this time of year.”
What officials are doing: Officials say teams are identifying and treating public sources where black flies can thrive, but that many of these sites are influenced by natural or infrastructure conditions outside their control.
How to protect yourself: Black flies can be hard to avoid outside in dense vegetation, but you can reduce the chance of a bite by:
SGV Mosquito and Vector Control District
Submit a tip here
You can also send a tip to district@sgvmosquito.org
(626) 814-9466
Greater Los Angeles Vector Control District
Submit a service request here
You can also send a service request to info@GLAmosquito.org
(562) 944-9656
Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control
Submit a report here
You can also send a report to ocvcd@ocvector.org
(714) 971-2421 or (949) 654-2421
Local favorite mom and pop shop READ Books in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say they’re just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.
What happened? The building where Kaplan and his wife Debbie rent was recently sold and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.
What's next? While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.
Read on... for what small businesses can do.
A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.
Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.
Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.
“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.
But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.
Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.
California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.
Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.
Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.
Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.
“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.
She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.
“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.
Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.
After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.
While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.
Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.
Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.
By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.
When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.
“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.
“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”
Topline:
The Los Angeles City Council approved a plan in a 13-1 vote on Tuesday to send ballots to more than half a million property owners asking if they are willing to pay more per year to fortify the city’s streetlight repair budget, most of which has essentially been frozen since the 1990s. The item still requires L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ signature, but her office confirmed to LAist on Wednesday that she’ll approve it.
Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.
Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.
Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote on Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.
Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.
How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.
Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired.The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.
Topline:
The Los Angeles City Council approved a plan in a 13-1 vote Tuesday to send ballots to more than a half-million property owners asking if they are willing to pay more per year to fortify the city’s streetlight repair budget, most of which essentially has been frozen since the 1990s. The item still requires L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ signature, but her office confirmed to LAist on Wednesday that she’ll approve it.
Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.
Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.
Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.
Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.
How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.
Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.
