Tesla (TSLA) Sold Most of Its Bitcoin Holdings During ‘Crypto Winter'
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
The company run by CEO Elon Musk was a trailblazer when it bought $1.5 billion of Bitcoin in 2021. But unfortunately, Tesla sold three-quarters (75%) of its holdings in 2022 as the market for digital assets was tanking and BTC was trading around $16,000.
Bitcoin has since rebounded in a big way, jumping 80% higher in the past year to currently trade at $116,000. This means that Tesla has lost out on billions of dollars in potential gains, missing a huge market opportunity.
Current Holdings
In its latest earnings release, dated July 23, Tesla said its current cryptocurrency holdings stand at $1.24 billion, up 72% from $722 million a year ago, mostly due to Bitcoin's strong rally that has taken its price to an all-time high of just over $123,000 in recent weeks.
Although Musk is focused on developing electric vehicles, self-driving robotaxis, and humanoid robots rather than cryptocurrencies, there's no denying that Tesla lost out when it sold most of its BTC at a market low. The company's business, which is struggling with poor electric vehicle sales and a consumer backlash against Musk's politics, could use the cash boost from crypto.
Is TSLA Stock a Buy?
The stock of Tesla has a consensus Hold rating among 35 Wall Street analysts. That rating is based on 14 Buy, 14 Hold, and seven Sell recommendations issued in the last three months. The average TSLA price target of $314.48 implies 0.36% downside from current levels.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
'Don't bet against Elon': What I saw from the true believers at Tesla's fan event
On Saturday, I attended X Takeover, a gathering for fans of Tesla, electric vehicles, and SpaceX. The Tesla Owners Club of Silicon Valley ran the event. I'm not a member, but I drive a Tesla Model 3 Performance, and my house has a Powerwall battery that's fed by solar panels. I love my Model 3, and I've been fascinated by the Cybertruck ever since the daring, divisive design came out. Given the debate over Tesla CEO Elon Musk 's political activities this year and the hit to sales, I went along to the fanfest to see how the Tesla faithful are holding up. I arrived at around 1:30 pm at the San Mateo County Event Center. I expected the parking lot to be full, but I found it was about half empty. Near the entrance, Tesla and Lucid offered attendees short test drives of new electric vehicles. A small handful of attendees tried this out, but there were no lines (perhaps because most people there already knew EVs so well?). When I walked into the event, it didn't feel that packed. I estimate maybe 1,000 people attended in total, although it could have been more. When Lars Moravy, Tesla's vice president of vehicle engineering, got onstage at around 3 pm, a lot of people gathered to watch, but the audience and VIP area still had some empty seats. 'Don't bet against Elon' However, passion abounded among those who showed up. They brought radically modified Tesla cars and Cybertrucks in wild colors. Someone had turned a Model 3 into a convertible (yes, I want one of those, please, Tesla). Another owner had installed a cannon on the back of their Cybertruck. I'm not sure if it was real, and I didn't ask. Original Tesla Roadsters in beautiful condition were parked next to a giant Tesla Semi truck. Kids played games, including coloring cardboard Cybertruck models with crayons. Families snapped selfies. Someone wore a "Don't bet against Elon" T-shirt. Another sported a shirt with Tesla's Austin robotaxi service area emblazoned on the front. (It's shaped a certain way, if you're wondering.) I sensed that Tesla's core fan base remains loyal and believes in the company and its leaders, possibly even more intensely than before the recent political backlash against Musk. However, it felt like others in Silicon Valley, including those who drive an EV to help the planet, have moved on and may not want to attend an event like X Takeover right now. Cybercabs and Cybertrucks One highlight for me was seeing the Cybercab close up, parked next to an Optimus robot. Several people crowded around snapping photos. The Cybercab looked cooler in person, especially the stubby, angular front nose and the satiny gold paint job. Still, one Tesla fan standing next to me wondered aloud why the company put only two seats in a vehicle that will carry people around via a rideshare service. What if the whole family needs to go somewhere? he wondered. Two-person rides are probably more common, we mused. Another Tesla fan, called Eurone, stood by the Cybercab with his girlfriend, taking photos. I asked him about robotaxi tests and the company's efforts to get this up and running in San Francisco. Eurone said he'd signed up to get an invitation in Austin and in San Francisco. If he gets one, he plans to fly from LA to either city to experience a ride. "It has to work," he said of Tesla's autonomous vehicle efforts. Eurone mentioned that he bought Tesla stock about two years ago at around $140 a share. The shares have more than doubled since then, but he hopes for more gains and thinks they're undervalued still. A couple from Washington state had driven their Cybertruck down to the Silicon Valley event and set up a tent and camping system on the vehicle. They let me climb up into the tent — it was cozy in there! I asked the wife what she thought of the robotaxi tests. She said she'd still be cautious about getting in a robotaxi without a test driver at the wheel. I chatted with a visitor from Texas who was looking at the Cybercab up close. He said he'd taken a robotaxi in Austin and was impressed by the smooth ride. Another driver cut him off during the test, and the robotaxi braked hard but smoothly. He compared this to his own Model Y with full self-driving (FSD), which he said sometimes brakes more abruptly in similar situations. I also met a couple from Houston who'd driven their bright orange Cybertruck all the way to this event in Silicon Valley. The truck also had a camping tent system on top, and the woman was cooking a cheeseburger on the back. They said they use FSD all the time and drove most of the way from Houston to San Mateo in FSD with no problems. Tesla engineering chief Lars Moravy speaks When Tesla vehicle engineering chief Moravy started his talk onstage, a group of guys stood up and chanted, "Lars! Lars! Lars!" Moravy was asked about the intense "anti-Tesla environment" over the last few months and how he and his engineering teams weathered the storm, and how it affected the Tesla brand. "I was like, 'hey, let's meet hate with love,' and I know a lot of you guys went out with doughnuts and did that, and I really appreciate that," Moravy said. "Having such a strong community that you can fall back on when you have tough times is super humbling, and it's awesome to know that we have all of you guys here to do that for us and make us feel like we're actually doing the right things." That elicited rounds of applause from the audience. Moravy said many engineers put their heads down and just worked harder and longer. The first half of the year was intense for these employees because Tesla was launching the updated Model Y globally, he said. "For the most part, that's how my team handled it and kind of pushed through it. And you know, it's nice to see some positive news again," he said, citing the opening of Tesla's diner and supercharger location in LA recently. "It was just a cool environment to see everyone there and the positivity around it. The last car for human drivers Moravy also described the company's "unboxed" manufacturing process, central to Tesla's coming Cybercab robotaxi service. It assembles vehicle modules separately and joins them later in the process. This improves line speed and reduces factory footprint dramatically, he said. The executive also said that Tesla designed the Cybercab for efficiency, durability, and low per-mile operating costs, with replaceable plastic body panels to simplify repairs. Moravy shared that Tesla conducted its first Cybercab crash test, which passed successfully. He spotlighted progress on the Tesla Semi, too, which is targeting production in 2026. Of all Tesla's projects right now, he said he's most excited about this product, calling it a no-brainer for fleets due to the expected low total cost of ownership. Meanwhile, he said Tesla is building Optimus, its humanoid robot, with micron-level precision to scale manufacturing to thousands of units a week, showcasing the company's ambition beyond vehicles. He described Tesla's new Roadster as an effort to design the last car for human drivers. This swan song has to be incredible, so the company has been taking its time to ensure that the capabilities are top-notch before releasing it, Moravy said. 'I hope we're still here' At the end, Moravy was asked what he hopes Tesla has achieved in five years' time that would make him proud as an engineering leader. "If you'd asked me this question five years ago, I would have said 'man, I hope we're still here,'" Moravy replied. "And so now I'm saying the same thing: 'Man, I hope we're still here," he added, to laughter from the audience. "Because we take big swings and sometimes that risk, you know, it can come with a lot of downside." "And I think we are in a big-swing moment with autonomy, with robotics and with Optimus, and with Semi," Moravy said. "I hope those all work out."
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
The DOGE Alum Asking if Foreign Aid Is America's Problem
transcript The DOGE Alum Asking if Foreign Aid Is America's Problem We have an entire computer system dedicated to memos at the State Department, right? And if you actually upload anything there, it's on Reuters within an hour, so you can't use it. So we're hand walking around paper like we're in the '40s. Who is actually running the U.S. government under this administration? Did the spirit of DOGE outlast Elon Musk? How are DOGE and America First changing U.S. foreign policy? My guest today is a youthful veteran of the Department of Government Efficiency, and now he's in charge of implementing the Trump administration's sweeping changes to foreign aid and development work. Jeremy Lewin, welcome to Interesting Times. Thank you so much for having me. I'm really great to. It's great to be here. So we're going to talk about policy, about the transformation of foreign aid, especially, and how the Trump administration sees America's humanitarian obligations. But first, I want to talk a little bit about your own career and background and how you ended up as a senior bureau official for the Office of Foreign Assistance. So you came into the government through DOGE, right? The Department of Government Efficiency. Yeah, that's right. So, the president won a resounding victory in November. I was going about my life in Los Angeles, in the private sector, and a friend of mine who worked with Elon Musk- I'd never met Elon in my life, but he worked with Elon and had become one of the first employees in what was then DOGE as part of the Trump administration's transition effort called me up and said, 'Hey, I think you'd be a really good fit for this. Do you want to sort of join, join the effort?' And at first I was sort of reluctant. I never sort of viewed myself as having a career in government, partly because the way that government has been conducted in the last 30 or 40 years is something that, like many people who support the president, we just simply don't see as aligned with our sort vision for the future. But when he ran- So, I've been a Trump supporter in various forms since I was in college, and he first ran for president in 2016. Were you in college then? I was, yeah. And so when he first ran in 2015, what first actually drew me to the president was his message on China. At that time, we were sort of waking up to the realities of their capture of various international organizations, of NGOs, of the trade infrastructure of the World Trade organization, of the World Health organization, et cetera. And the president was the only person who was really speaking clearly about these issues, and really talking about the effect on sort of economic policy, on trade, on jobs, et cetera, in America. So what did you- what were you- So you were in college then- What were you planning- since you mentioned you didn't plan to go work in government. What was your plan for your 20s, and what did you actually end up doing? Yeah, so I went to law school. I had sort of done some finance in college. I thought maybe I'd go back to that. I ended up doing, working at a law firm doing litigation, regulatory work. I was in D.C. and I did clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. So it's not like I wasn't that interested in public law and public policy. But I went back to Los Angeles, planning on getting married. I'm engaged and was going to start a life, have a family and work in the private sector and be a citizen- I mean, be politically involved to the extent that I read things and that I discuss it. But particularly the last four years of the Biden administration were deeply upsetting, I think, to a lot of people who wanted to have any chance at resetting where things had gone and those sort of Obama years. Because as someone who was a critic of the Obama years, it was very exciting, obviously, when the president was in office from 2016 to 2020. President Biden ran on this mission of sort of restoring certain things and bringing decency and bipartisanship. And then, of course, you see through the sort of growth of progressivism and sort of these neo-marxist socialist ideas, the critical race theory, all of that on the left, you see this presidency. And that was very sort of depressing for lack of, not to use the internet term, but it was a black pill in a sense, to watch the country decline into that at the time he's prosecuting the president. You don't know whether President Trump is going to go to jail. You sort of have this obviously senile man running the country. You're not really sure who's running the country. The policy outcomes are horrible. You've got sort of mass immigration. But you supported President Biden, or then I guess candidate Biden, for president in 2020, isn't that correct? That's simply not true. No? I voted for President Trump in every election since I've been a voter. So when Joe Biden was elected in 2020, did you not send a celebratory message saying that you were 'so proud to be part of team Joe since last fall? Because that was reported in a screenshot, I believe, in the Boston Globe. There were a lot of lies that were spread about me in the media. when it was announced that I would be taking a leadership role at U.S.A.I.D. A lot of people went back. A lot of people from my background who don't agree with me said various things. Various things took various points out of context. At the time, in 2020, I think a lot of people felt as though there was a certain vision of a Biden presidency again, which was turned out not to be true. And maybe there was some degree of optimism when he was inaugurated and talked about bringing America back together and working on conservative ideas. And that was the failure of his presidency. But no, I've supported I've been a Republican since I can remember. I've worked with Democrats, I've engaged with Democrats. I've been open to Democratic ideas. But I have been a Republican for my entire adult life. So you were happy when Trump won. You're 28 years old. You have an impressive resume. You have a little bit of law and business experience. You weren't planning into going into government, your friend. So your friend. Did your friend work for one of Musk's companies. The friend who called you up. Yeah, he worked at Tesla. So he. So he calls you up and says, send your resume to DOGE. Like what was actually the process for joining. I'm not going to get into all of the specifics, but it was a series of calls and interviews, frankly, this quotient of the administration that's doing the hard operational work. It's less about ideology and more about being operationally excellent, especially for Ellen, because ultimately, and I think this is like a key realization in government, everyone wants to be their own policymaker. And we can sit here and discuss my views. I certainly have my own views, but that's not my job. And that's not the job of nearly anyone in the administration. Your job is to execute the vision that the president, that the Secretary, that senior leadership lays out. You notice this in the bureaucracy all the time. There's a well, I have to follow the letter of this command. But do I have to follow the Spirit. Is my job to actually implement what the president or the Secretary wants, or is it to narrowly do what I'm told, but also implement my own vision. And so I think this idea that but it's also but it's also a shift where you're not at all someone who worked in the diplomatic Corps. Worked in the State Department, worked on foreign aid. So part of the model clearly is bringing in, let's say, smart young generalists. And setting them to work inside the bureaucracy. And that's why you are where you are right now, right. I suppose in some sense, Yes. And I think there's tremendous value in having an object, the objectivity that comes with not having been part of the diplomatic Corps. But ultimately, again, it's about working hard and executing faithfully the vision that set forward by the people who are elected, confirmed and are leading the policy vision. So that's always been my task, whether it was on DOGE or now in a more formal role at the State Department, it's to execute the secretary's vision and the president's vision and to do so faithfully. And so I think that's the most important qualification. I happen to have certain skills or a certain mindset that has allowed me, I think, to be effective in that. So were you assigned to the State Department after you, after you onboarded with DOGE, or was this a choice. How did you start. Well, so I was going to have a different role in the administration. And then when the U.S.A.I.D. situation came to the fore. And so backing up the idea of taking U.S.A.I.D., which was this unaccountable, independent institution that was doing foreign policy and foreign assistance out of alignment with the National interest, out of alignment with the diplomatic priorities of the State Department, out of align with what the president of the Secretary of State wanted to be doing. That's an idea that's been kicked around for a long time. And there have been various proposals to merge U.S.A.I.D. under state. And certainly the Secretary had been thinking about that for a long time. That being said, DOGE did not go in with the idea that they would be part of this rapid change in the structure of foreign assistance. And so about the second week, and Elon has talked about this before we realized and indicative of the lack of accountability and leadership at U.S.A.I.D., that they were making payments that were in violation of some of the president's executive orders, the foreign assistance pause, et cetera. And so, Ellen had been tasked by the president with investigating the situation. And then there was a determination that we would be much more rapidly implementing the restructuring of U.S.A.I.D. And at that point, Yes, I suppose in some sense, I was assigned to assist with that. And so U.S.A.I.D. then becomes a special focus, right. As you said, there had always been running critiques from conservatives, especially that U.S.A.I.D. is building a kind of progressive oriented matrix of programs and so on, even progressivism. I think, if you just back up U.S.A.I.D. viewed his constituency as the global humanitarian complex. It did not view its constituency as the American taxpayer or the National interest of the United States. So, I mean, you hear this and you see it in all of the documents that they prepare. One of the biggest complaints is, and I've heard this, I've talked to more than 30 ambassadors, most of whom were appointed by Biden or were are members of the career, Foreign Service. And you would see examples where they would say, hey, this country in Africa doesn't actually want this program. It's not an alignment with what the government wants. It's not in alignment with what's on the ground. But who wanted it was some non-governmental organization or international organization that a bunch of Obama, Biden alums or all these people that worked at U.S.A.I.D. were at. So they would push and you'd have senior Biden officials traveling to countries and batting down career ambassadors, telling them, no, you don't understand the diplomatic priorities. What matters here is what the UN is telling you. And so you've got America as a representative on the ground saying the country that we're implementing this foreign assistance in doesn't even want it, and it's not advancing our interest to the contrary, they're upset about it. And yet we are still paying. We're still using American taxpayer dollars to pay for a program that our ambassador on the ground doesn't want the country. Doesn't want. What conceivable benefit are we as Americans, getting for the National interest of this country by funding that program. And I think that's the problem that we were really seeking to address. Most of all, with the restructuring of U.S.A.I.D. and also, frankly, again, to get rid of programs that do not deliver for the American people. I want to get into the specifics of what you think doesn't deliver in a minute. But I want to ask you about the speed here, how quickly this was accomplished. A lot of the critiques of what happened with DOGE was that speed basically became a license to have programs stop working for a while, because you're trying to change things so quickly, or you're canceling grants that then have to be restarted and so on. And so in the case of foreign aid you have a promise that life saving aid gets would get a waiver from the suspensions. But then there were all kinds of questions about well, how are you delivering aid if you are cutting staff over here or if this system isn't working over there. So again, before we get into the specifics, why did it need to happen so rapidly. Isn't there isn't there a benefit in terms of the continuity of programs and the success of programs that you want to keep to take an extra month to make sure that the aid shipments are all getting delivered right, or that the waiver is actually taking effect, and that people who are eligible for getting anti-malarials and so on are actually getting them on time. A couple points. I think it's first worth noting what the Secretary said at his budget testimony a couple of months ago. He was in the Senate for more than a decade, and people had talked about these various ideas, including the restructuring of U.S.A.I.D., the restructuring of foreign assistance. Many of these ideas were talked about in the first Trump administration, and they didn't get done because of how entrenched the bureaucracy is, how difficult it is to get these things done. So if you don't move quickly, there's a tremendous could think about the laws of physics, but you need to move quickly and with a lot of energy to get a lot of these things done. And so I think that's the first observation. The second observation is, well, first of all, we have always tried our best to mitigate the ill effects. That doesn't mean you're going to be perfect. No one's perfect in everything. But I think there's this narrative that the administration or the Secretary are of don't care about these stoppage effects, these costs that happen when there's tremendous change. And I think on the one hand, the mainstream media coverage has talked about in vague sense, the historic nature of some of these reforms. But it hasn't talked about what they mean for the next 30, 40 years of engagement in the world. And when the Secretary is thinking about these reforms, he's thinking with that lens, a historical lens, a generational lens. And when you think about reforms in that way, the cost benefit of some disruption in the short term versus the long term benefit of significantly realigning foreign policy. Foreign assistance for the American people. It makes a lot more sense why you're willing to tolerate some degree of disruption. Again, we tried our very best to mitigate disruption. Doesn't mean that. And we can argue all of these various specifics. We can engage in the hand to hand combat that. Many of your colleagues on the reporting side, would like to engage in. But ultimately, the point here is the Secretary has the vision of what this means to do diplomacy, real diplomacy, bilateral relationships. You want this, I want that. Let's get a deal done. How are we dealing with this security situation. How can we talk to each other. So we avoid war. The last reorganization of the Department, ironically occurred under Clinton. And where do they reorganize it. Around they reorganize it around the growth of policy offices, the growth of these issue offices, the growth of this well, let's promote all these ideas. Let's engage with these international organizations. Let's build all these complicated, bureaucratic, multilateral constructs both inside the US government, both on a global scale. And that's how we're going to create this control. But But I think the expectation behind those kind of changes was that these kind of networks were in the American National interest. Well Yeah, but that's exactly what I want to talk about. Well, I just want I just want to give a due explanation of that theory. Because part of what makes the Trump administration shift meaningful is it's not just a bureaucratic reorganization. It is reorganized around a change in the vision of US foreign policy, where basically, the argument that you're making is that a network of civil society promotion, non-governmental organizations and so on, funded by US tax dollars around the world doesn't help the US get its way around the world. And embedded in that right is the assumption that where there are unpleasant governments, government, authoritarian governments and so on. Part of the post-cold war assumption was that with a little bit of pushing, those governments would become democracies. And that was, I think, clearly a big part of what led to the shift. It's demonstrably failed. I mean, just go look back at history and look what happened. I mean, what you see is the growth of these civil society organizations. Well-intentioned, I'll grant you. But what have they actually accomplished. Where have they gone. We've seen, how they've moved themselves towards authoritarianism with some of these critical ideas that have grown in the progressive left, how a lot of these international organizations have turned to censorship on a global scale, have turned to regime change. I mean, one of the key things about realigning foreign assistance is a few general principles. The program has to work. It has to be accountable. It can't be funding. I mean, we talk about people talk about fraud, right. DOGE didn't find that much fraud at U.S.A.I.D. It's a definitional question. What is fraud in the sense of well, maybe I defrauded you. The grant says I do x And I do. That's a very narrow conception of fraud. But is it a fraud to say you have this organization that the New York Times' has painted as feeding all sorts of poor and destitute people around the world, but in fact, a significant portion of the money is going to pay $400,000 salaries at Uc Berkeley to do climate and race science research. Is that a fraud on the American people. I mean, I would say it kind of is. Well, but just so just to pause on that issue. So one of the things that Secretary Rubio has said, and that I believe the vice president said when I interviewed him, was that in many cases you had something like, an 85, 15 or 90/10 ratio, of how much aid is actually getting to people on the ground versus getting consumed in the kind of things you're describing. But in fact, as far as I can see, that's not right. What that statistic is describing is, was how much aid goes directly to a charity that is based in Uganda or Eritrea or wherever else. Versus how much goes to a charity based in the US. And Yes, some of those organizations are connected to climate projects or what have you, but a bunch of them are, things like Samaritan's Purse or Catholic Charities, right. Like organizations that historically the US government, for conservative reasons, assumed would be better at delivering aid. So it's a little unclear to me sometimes what the administration is critiquing. Are you critiquing left wing politics or are you critiquing just are you saying that. Well evangelical and Catholic Charities based in the US were doing a bad job. Like what is the concrete critique there. It can't all be Uc Berkeley climate projects. Again, the idea is it's multifold. There are a lot of different ways to look at this question that you're talking about how much of the money actually reaches people in need. You can build from the idea that a lot of these grants have really high indirect cost rates. It's going for programs that are of non-core, that are not desired by the country, that are not, in fact, life saving in any meaningful sense that are not leading to development goals. But I think, just more abstractly, backing up, we have failed to develop a lot of the places where we've invested the most money over the last 10, 20 years. The system has demonstrably failed. We all know it to be true from a common sense perspective. The results in Africa, in Southeast Asia in the Western hemisphere from U.S.A.I.D. projects and investments have not been significant. We have invested $100 billion through U.S.A.I.D. in Africa in the last decade. And China is eating our lunch, right. I mean, because what we've seen is that African countries and this is the president is a tremendous dealmaker. The Secretary is a tremendous dealmaker when he sits down with these countries. And I've had the pleasure of participating in some of these meetings, having my own conversations with governments around the world. What we hear from the governments is they want bilateral partnership, they want economic partnership. They don't want moralising. They don't want programs they can't control. They don't want these international organizations that don't care about their sovereignty, that don't care about their government. They want to actually develop. I mean, from a historical perspective. So you're so your sense, so your sense basically to take the example of China. Is that so China has invested heavily in Africa along the lines that you describe. Well, actually not quite along the lines that I described. China engages in exploitative debt trap diplomacy. The belt and Road is a trap. And that's not what we're offering. The president is offering real, genuine, above board bilateral trade relationships. And sometimes there's an assistant component of that, whether it's critical minerals, whether it's investing in promotion of infrastructure, real infrastructure. Like I'm excited that we're working on a compact that I hope to announce in the next few weeks to deliver American made, innovative 21st century drone infrastructure and a bunch of countries in Africa to help them do last mile delivery for humanitarian assistance and for other purposes. Package delivery, et cetera in places where the road infrastructure isn't as fully developed. So then so you have two things going on right. It seems like that you're suggesting first you have and at the same time, by the way, China has eaten our lunch. Right But you're saying so you're saying but part of but but part of so part of what you're arguing is that essentially the US can do a fairer, better, more equitable version of the kind of investment that China has been promising Africa. So you're saying basically, we've gone in with aid and grants and NGOs and they've gone in and promised to build trains, ports, to use your example, maybe now drone infrastructure. And so you're saying we can beat China by promising those kind of deals on better terms. So that's part of it, right. That's part of it. And I think with an assistance component to right where it's strategic. I mean, so I just approved a program to deploy small modular nuclear reactors built in the United States to an allied country to help with their energy infrastructure. We are building ports. We just announced on the back of which allied country would that be. I can't tell you. It's not public yet. O.K we just announced nearly $100 million in New assistance building hard infrastructure in the Philippines. And these are programs, again, that are developed with our ambassador. That program was developed with our ambassador and with the Philippines government. And this is it's hard infrastructure. It's stuff that's actually going to help develop in a meaningful, real sense. It's not going to be there's this model of UN humanitarianism. And I don't want to go to incentives and everything. But if you think about the United Nations incentives and the UN has grown to be a massive infrastructure that has all of these, all of the money just goes from one organization to another. The subcontracts all of this stuff. But the UN has thousands of employees making a lot of money all around the world, and they benefit from crises, and they benefit from keeping people dependent and keeping people from developing in any meaningful sense, from progressing beyond aid. And the Secretary has said from the beginning, our vision of success for foreign assistance is that we don't need any more foreign assistance. The best foreign assistance is that which ends. So we will invest on the infrastructure side on the economic promotion side, sometimes on the Civil liberties side where appropriate and on the humanitarian component where there's a real and exigent crisis. But we will invest with an eye towards building countries up to become bilateral partners. And we will make sure that all of the assistance is tied to trade market access to foreign policy priorities, et cetera, and that we think is going to be better for the countries that are recipients of aid. And that is obviously going to be better for the United States, because we're going to be investing with a time scale that takes into account the fact that we need to see results. So what. So what is then on the humanitarian side. Humanitarian aid, which is by far the most controversial aspect of these cuts. And you mentioned, I guess, hand to hand combat with my colleagues over specific cuts that the administration has either proposed or actually made. And I should note here for the audience that it's all a little complicated to figure out what cuts are actually happening, because there were cuts that were proposed. There were cuts that Congress did not approve in the rescissions package. There were cuts. Those are budgetary cuts. Those are separate from program cuts. I mean, so there's. Yeah a fair question about the murkiness of identifying all of this. I would say it's been exploited unfairly by certain elements of the media. It's mostly based on leaks from people in the building. This building leaks like a sieve. I mean, it's kind of remarkable for national Security Agency. You can't keep a single thing secret. We have to hand walk memos around like we're in the 40s, because if you put something in our we have an entire computer system dedicated to memos at the State Department. And if you actually upload anything there, it's on Reuters within an hour, so you can't use it. So we're hand walking around paper like we're in the 40s. And I think a lot of it is well-meaning. So not on the basis of leaks, just on the basis of our conversation together. The administration in the rescissions package asked for cuts to PEPFAR, budget cuts, budget cuts. Spending cuts. Less money would be spent. Right Yes. Well, less money would be earmarked. Can you confirm in out of all of these pots of money and different aspects. The administration, the administration is going to spend we are continuing PEPFAR and on malaria, and the administration wants to spend less money on treating on treating some of. No no no no no. I think when you look at what PEPFAR was spending its money on those cuts, very modest amount of money that was cut from PEPFAR was not for direct treatment. Treating people with HIV and stuff like that, it's on LGBTQ education programs or whatnot that were funded because PEPFAR was a tremendously successful project. And one of the most successful humanitarian projects in the history of the United States, right. But it became so successful that it outgrew some of its need. Countries graduated, their infection rates came down. Some of them became wealthier enough that they could take more of the burden themselves because it was so successful. This is a classic DC story. You keep on appropriating more and more money to PEPFAR, and then you don't know what to do with it. So you start spending it on things that are of non-core. You start spending it on things that are outside of the scope of what it's supposed to be doing. And then suddenly, I mean, almost anyone in DC who's thought seriously about these issues will admit that PEPFAR had more money than it really needed to accomplish its core HIV treatment and disease prevention mission. But presumably, a lot of the extra money was spent on the assumption that ideally you're not just treating cases of the disease. You mentioned education. Maybe you're trying to. Educate people about not having the kind of sex that transmits HIV. And there's a question about whether those things are abstractly good or whether the American taxpayer needs to pay for all of them, or whether other countries, whether other multilateral partners, et cetera, can pay for some of these things. But the Secretary is absolutely committed to PEPFAR mission and to beating HIV around the world. I mean, he committed, I was part of that more than $1 billion to honor the US commitment to the Global Fund to fight HIV. We continue to spend we just obligated more than $1 billion across PEPFAR, global programming to continue all of these key programs around the world through the next few months. So there's no question that we remain committed to the program. We think we can do it more efficiently and with a different model. U.S.A.I.D. had tons of US direct hires, people that were all around the world, a decentralized payment system that was built decades ago before we had modern technology. I mean, the Department of State, this doesn't get any play, right. But we helped build the first of any federal agency, as far as I'm aware. Payment system that tracks grants, appropriations, payments. We have more than 300 career staff that are already using it. And so we have more financial controllers at our hub in Charleston here instead of around the world. And that's less expensive. So then your operational budget is less expensive, and you cut some of the programs where other countries can pick up some of the Slack. Where a country has its transmission rates are low enough, it's wealthy enough that it can share more of the burden of HIV transmission. That's a success story. In DC that's a failure because you've stopped giving money somewhere. But to anyone else that's a success story. We have helped get a country's HIV rates low enough that they can manage it on their own. And so when you put all those things together, you lean a little bit less money to do the same mission with PEPFAR. Doesn't mean we're backing away from it. So why aren't you backing away from it. PEPFAR is the most prominent example. It's the case where there's the most Republican support for foreign aid, precisely, as you said, because it's seen as this huge success started under George W Bush. But there's a range of diseases around the world that are treatable, relatively cheap level. The Uc is well positioned to support treatment for those diseases and so on. But why is it in America's interest. So now I want you to make the case, the America First case for spending on HIV prevention, HIV treatment, malaria treatment, and so on. Like, how does it fit into the National interest to spend money in those areas. Again, when we go back to this vision of foreign assistance, there's a part that is very transactional, economically oriented security assistance. That's very what are we getting. This is a Uc ally. This is a Uc trading partner. We want access to your markets, all of that. But there's also a component. The Secretary said this America will continue to be the most generous nation in the world. China does no meaningful humanitarian assistance, by the way. There's this myth that China is going to step in and pay for all these programs. China does virtually no real humanitarian assistance. We have done 10 times, what China has done for the last several years. We will continue to do several times what China does. And so the United States, there is value in being means tested, strategically oriented, narrowly fighting these epidemics. And as many people have pointed out, HIV, the scourge of HIV, continues to be a global and regional issue. HIV happens to be one where again, the Roi metrics on a lot of these direct treatment programs are high. And so we are seeing efficacy. And we are seeing real results for every dollar spent. And so again, the administration continues to look at these things on a case by case basis. The president the Secretary make those judgments. And PEPFAR again, is an area where we continue to invest as is malaria. By the way, I would say that we obligated a ton of New money to fight malaria because that, as many people have pointed out, continues to be a very low cost, high efficacy way of supporting humanitarian goals around the world. So, again, the idea that we're backing away from some of these UN multilateral constructs from some of these we need to solve every problem in the world, and we need to be the only one doing it. We don't have to ask for contributions from our allies, from the countries that are actually dealing with these problems. Just because we're backing away with that doesn't mean we're completely abandoning the idea that the United States has any obligation or that would be in our strategic interests to in targeted and high Roi ways, invest in the world. I want to walk you. I want to walk you toward the theory behind that one. So just one last point. Yeah when we do this now, we expect there to be an end date. What we're objecting to is these programs that have no expiration date, that create dependency, that go on for a long time, that are not closely coordinated with the countries. So as we think about realigning PEPFAR, one thing that we're doing is doing more government to government, right. This is actually something that President Obama started with at U.S.A.I.D., where you're doing more government to government. And I'll tell you why with PEPFAR and with all of these health programs, we expect the government at some point, when they're able to take over more of the responsibility so we can burden share a little bit more. And when the PEPFAR crisis when HIV in a country goes down, transmission rates go down, the country becomes wealthy enough, they can sustain their own health care system. We will happily recede and they can take over. What we object to is these idea they're humanitarian projects where the United States has been investing billions of dollars for 40 or 50 years, with virtually no result, no end in sight, no game plan to wind down or have anyone else do anything. And clearly it's not working if the crisis has persisted for 30 or 40 years. And so I want but I want the aid and the UN that actually exacerbates the crisis. I want you I want you to define I just I'm really interested. Sorry in the abstract, slightly more abstract question here, which is when the US does something like funding malaria treatment or something like that. Does it do this for reasons that are directly linked to the National interest, where it's like the US wants to be perceived as altruistic so that other countries will like us. And I know this is not your job, as you keep saying. This is President Trump's job and it's Secretary Rubio's job. But you talk to people higher up than yourself. Do you have the sense that the Trump administration believes that some of these programs are good in and of themselves. Or is it more a sense of the US wants to defeat China, contain China, and so on. And we want to be perceived as altruistic. I'd say the slippery slope of beginning to moralize about all these issues around the world leads you to the failed model of the last 40 or 50 years. I would say that doesn't mean that as human beings, we don't feel tremendous the situation in many places in the world is tremendously challenging, and it's sad to see. And the global aid complex, which I really think had grown to be self-serving and corrupt exploits in many ways, the emotions of people that understandably feel as though they have some moral obligation as a human being to deal with these crises around the world. But as an elected official Like the president or the Secretary is appointed and me as an appointee of the administration. Our job is to advocate for American interests first and foremost. And that's full stop. It's Americans that we champion, we protect, we advocate for American interests and American citizens. And so when we think about these programs, that has to be our lens first and foremost. And so it is rewarding, obviously, to deliver food to deliver aid. And as someone who's approving a lot of this stuff now, you feel good when you help people. There's no question about that. But again, you have to do it through the lens of is this good for the United States is their real return here. Is this a problem that we should be addressing that it advances our interests. And some of them certainly there are values based interests of the United States. No one is denying that. What are the values based interests of the United States. Well I mean, again, this is a question that the president and the Secretary define more than me, but the values based, we are a responsible party and we go back to China, right. You talked about we're doing this in a way that is more respectful of people's sovereignty, of their dignity. I mean, I think it's kind of funny, right. I had dinner with a foreign minister of a Gulf country who was talking about how Oh, Thank God. You guys are here because in the last administration, it started under Susan Rice. They kept on agitating for the unionization of the foreign workers in my country. And it was a real point of tension with diplomatic tension between the United States and this country, because they started saying, well, you need to unionize your foreign workers, all of that stuff. I mean, completely detached from any American interest. And so get to these points where. Sure I mean, you might abstractly believe in the United States, I happen to not be a proponent of organized labor, but that's another thing entirely. Well, I mean, the issue is a matter of wait, wait, wait. The issue in the Gulf countries is whatever you think about organized labor is that there is a scale of exploitation of their foreign workers that goes a bit beyond. But the question is that our problem. I mean, is it our. No that is. That is my question to be spending our diplomatic capital, our trade. I mean, everything has a cost in diplomacy. And that's the fundamental truth of diplomacy. I mean, you have relationships. You have good relationships with President. Secretary are master negotiators, a relationship drivers at the same time. The fundamental reality, this is a realist administration. Countries should act in their national interest. This is a general principle of economic theory of geopolitical theory. Countries should act in their interest, and when they do so, and they do so rationally, you come to agreements and that's how the system is supposed to work. And so it is not rationally in our interest. For we were the suckers of the global system for so long because we were one of the only countries in the world that was bumbling around, acting in other people's interests instead of ours. And you can't serve two masters at the same time. I mean, as much as we'd like to advance these humanitarian interests in our private capacity and our personal capacity and our moral capacity, our religious capacity, ultimately, you cannot serve two masters, the United States and the United States diplomatic Corps. And the United States government need to advocate for American interests, American citizens, American security interests, economic interests. But I started. I started. We've just gone through a long discussion that started with unionization in the Gulf states in response to me asking you, what are our values based interests. So I'm going to return. So you're saying that's an example of what it's not right. It's not. What is the situation. What is a situation where the US, by advancing its moral values, the values of a Democratic society that has a bill of rights that supports human freedom and human dignity in some way. What is the point at which that becomes part of our foreign policy if it does, but is it our idea to go pander? I mean, I think it's funny that the previous administration that would play identity politics and all of that was so condescending to other countries in the world telling them they needed to manage their government and their affairs in the same way that the United States or had done it or they had to adopt these rights based principles that we had adopted in our law or that our voters had endorsed. which is the pinnacle of arrogance, frankly. And it was hurting our diplomatic relationships. So what I think it's not is we can proudly proclaim our own values, and we will. And there are times at which certain countries, particularly our allies, will abridge certain fundamental rights. And we will at times check them. There's no question about the Secretary has been very clear about the abuses of the Venezuelan regime. The president has been very clear about the abuses of the Brazilian regime in recent days. So there's no question that sometimes when allied countries and countries that are our partners abridge certain fundamental rights, we will continue to call them out. But the question is our fundamental purpose in doing that to moralize to them, to get them to change their own ways or to get them to live by certain overriding rules. And I think when we think about overriding rules, we're thinking much less of collective rights, much more of individual liberties and basic theories of the polity that come from judeo-christian values, from natural rights jurisprudence. I mean, in the State Department reorganization, we reorganized the Bureau of Democracy, Human rights and labor, which reports to me now in my current capacity to focus on these issues on democracy and Western values, on our conventional conceptions of democracy, of individual liberties, of free speech, rather than these tenuous, attenuated principles of collective rights that are advanced by the United Nations and in these various policy. Documents, I mean. I mean. Well, let me just break the interviewers mold and give you, give you my own opinion for a minute. And you can react to this. So I agree with a lot of your arguments and critiques about where administrations going back to the end of the Cold War have gone wrong, and I take it for granted, as the Trump administration does, that we're living in a moment where the US's ability to promote democracy, the way we did around the fall of the Berlin Wall is quite limited, and we're stuck dealing with regimes like the regimes you mentioned in the Middle East, our allies who are not going to become democracies anytime soon. We have to live with that. We have to do diplomacy with them. We have to do bilateral diplomacy along the lines that you described. I think that is a very reasonable part of this administration's vision for the world. I also, though, Ma very strong supporter of many of the things that we have done in terms of basic humanitarian assistance in places like Africa. And so what I want from the administration as an interested observer of its foreign policy is a sense that its realist vision of how the world works has room for saying, look, from our surplus as a rich country, we're going to save lives in Africa. I know people who work as basically like missionary doctors in really, really, really bad parts of the world. Who but who today. But who have groups from religious groups, right. Who are doing that work and have never before had the opportunity to engage with the State Department and U.S.A.I.D. because they weren't doing it at the scale. They weren't doing it in the way that fit within the whole UN bureaucracy, all of that. Who we are going to try to partner with to deliver foreign assistance in Africa and other places. And so, we can have this discussion about whether it's because of as an abstract philosophical matter, whether it's because of some moral commitment or whether it's because of our strategic interests. But again, the fact of the matter is, Secretary Rubio and the president have been very clear. We will continue to deliver life saving assistance, whether it's in Africa, whether it's in the Middle East, whether it's elsewhere in the world, Southeast Asia, et cetera. We will continue to do that, but we will continue to do so more efficiently, more tailored, more targeted, in a way that is not creating dependency. And again, the point here is that this is a really long time scale. This is a generational. Again, U.S.A.I.D. defined this failed Clinton-ite engagement in the world that had us lose to China, that had us fail to develop, frankly. I mean, you talked about Africa, right. We may be keeping people alive as a basic subsistence matter, but for all the money we spent there, did we really help develop sub-Saharan Africa. Not really. I mean, we failed in that mission. We have successes, sure, but we have plenty of failures. And so I think the idea here is that over the next couple of years, we will continue to articulate a perspective vision, to flesh it out, to make investments that are demonstrative, that show the American people what President Trump's priorities are, what Secretary Rubio's priorities are, but again, are grounded in American national interests, in real investments that we think will have lasting effects. And as the president has kept on saying, peace through strength, peace through trade, peace through mutual respect. Jeremy I'm sorry. I'm sorry to try to keep trying to pin you down on this, but I just want you to say straightforwardly, for the sake of people who are concerned by specific stories about cuts to malaria programs and so on. So you think it is in the interest of the United States to save people's lives from disease where we can around the world. That's in the National interest. Secretary Rubio and President Trump will continue to support high impact programs in malaria and PEPFAR and HIV and tuberculosis and child and maternal health. And a lot of these key categories. They're looking at these programs based on where they are in the country level, who's implementing them, what the real results are, what the costs are. But there will be continued investment in those programs. We're excited to make PEPFAR more efficient. We're excited to meet. We think we can meet President Trump's goal of ending mother to child transmission by the time that he leaves office. So, I mean, there are a lot of different things that we're excited about. And there are a key part of our affirmative vision. So now looking forward, you keep talking about this as a generational change. And we started this conversation with you talking about what as a college kid, saw as the failures of the post-cold war paradigm with regard to China. So if we were looking back on this conversation 15 or 20 years from now, and we were looking around Africa or Latin America or Southeast Asia, what would you expect to see as indicators of a successful change in how America does aid and development work. That's a great question again. I think I'd like to see real economic development, trade deals, market access stuff, American companies investing there. I mean, we talked about Africa, right. Chinese companies all over Africa, and American companies have a very difficult time accessing those markets for a variety of reasons. We have American aid workers everywhere. But I'd like to see real American investment. I want to look at sub-Saharan Africa and see American companies, American workers doing trade and mutual exchange, not just delivering aid year after year as part of the construct or anything like that. That would be a real measure of success. I think the most important part of this interview is what you said. Our model is to take what was a dependency based foreign assistance for the Ngo complex, et cetera, and turn it into something that is a more appealing, more humane version of the bilateral relationships that China has been offering successfully eating our lunch all around the world. And so that's what's going to define the next stage of American investment in the world. It's going to be not patronizing, not pushing all these Western causes all around the world, but saying what we believe in the way that you are going to have human flourishing in your country. And if you look on a scale, what has led to more development, life expectancy, well-being, human utility around the world than economic development. That's the cornerstone of everything. And when we engage in the world, that's our touchstone. But with the lens that the United States', national interest must come first in every instance. Great. Jeremy Lewin, Thanks for joining me. Thank you so much. DOGE's cuts to U.S.A.I.D. aren't just a case study in the Trump administration going after woke spending or trying to change the federal government's bottom line. It was also crucial to a larger shift in foreign policy strategy. The whole apparatus that the United States has used traditionally to exercise soft power is being gutted, redirected and transformed. And that means changes to how the United States does aid and development work, how it promotes democracy around the world and the way it relates to foreign governments. But it's still unclear — even to me — where America's humanitarian mission and programs like PEPFAR, the AIDS-fighting initiative, fit into the new vision of America First. My guest today is well positioned to bring some clarity to this shift in strategy and values. Jeremy Lewin is a youthful veteran of DOGE, a 28-year-old with no government experience before January, who's now a State Department official in charge of implementing the Trump administration's sweeping changes to foreign aid and development work. Below is an edited transcript of an episode of 'Interesting Times.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Grant Cardone says 1 asset will replace gold
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. As a real estate mogul, Grant Cardone has long championed the advantages of real estate investing. However, in recent years, Cardone has been quietly building his position in a completely different asset — one he believes holds tremendous potential for growth. 'I've been investing in Bitcoin (BTC) since 2013 and consistently adding to my position quietly, even as recently as last week and today when BTC hit $106,000,' he wrote in a Dec. 17 email to Moneywise. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Cardone's conviction stems from his vision of Bitcoin's future role in the global financial landscape. 'My belief is BTC will eventually replace gold, and possibly be on the U.S. balance sheet and at least adopted as an alternative to treasury bills, savings accounts, ETFs and diversified mutual funds,' he explained. He further pointed out that this idea isn't far-fetched, noting that the Bitcoin Policy Institute has drafted an Executive Order for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve for President Donald Trump. Once considered a niche asset, Bitcoin has surged into the mainstream, with its price skyrocketing 120% in 2024 alone. The cryptocurrency has also caught the attention of policymakers, including Trump, who sees its strategic potential. 'We're going to do something great with crypto because we don't want China, or anybody else … but others are embracing it, and we want to be ahead,' Trump told CNBC's Jim Cramer in December. How high can it go? One reason Bitcoin attracts crypto enthusiasts is its built-in scarcity, often earning it the nickname 'digital gold.' Unlike fiat currencies, which can be printed in unlimited quantities by central banks, Bitcoin's supply is capped at 21 million coins, a limit enforced by its underlying mathematical algorithms. This scarcity has fueled its reputation as a hedge against inflation. Over the years, Bitcoin proponents have made bold predictions about its future price. In his email to Moneywise, Cardone shared his own projections for the cryptocurrency's potential growth in the coming years. 'A conservative model project BTC prices of: $150,000 - 180,000 in 2025, $300,000 within 36 months, $600,000 at 60 months, and $1 million at 72 months,' he stated. Reaching the $1 million mark would represent an extraordinary upside of approximately 843% from Bitcoin's recent levels. Gemini is a full-reserve and regulated cryptocurrency exchange and custodian, which allows users to buy, sell and store bitcoin and 70 other cryptocurrencies. You can place instant, recurring and limit buys on their growing and vetted list of available cryptos. But if you're not ready to buy just yet, you can still invest in crypto with their Gemini credit card. Read more: BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — Real estate isn't forgotten While Bitcoin's ascent has drawn plenty of attention, its journey to current levels hasn't been without significant pullbacks. To address this, Cardone is launching a hybrid fund that aims to balance the risks and rewards of cryptocurrency with the stability of real estate. 'Our conservative models, using historical performances, suggest we can use real estate to mitigate volatility by pairing BTC and institutional-quality, cash-flow-positive real estate together,' Cardone explained in his email. 'We're purchasing 10 institutional-grade properties in prime locations, all of which generate positive cash flow and will benefit from rental growth over the next 48 to 72 months.' Cardone's strategy involves using the dollar-cost averaging method to incorporate Bitcoin, funded by the monthly cash flow generated from these properties. He says this approach combines the best attributes of both asset classes: 'time-tested, institutional-grade real estate and the high-growth potential of Bitcoin.' Real estate remains a cornerstone of wealth building for many investors. Rental properties can not only provide a steady stream of passive income but also offer the potential for long-term appreciation and act as a tangible hedge against inflation, as property values often rise in tandem with the increasing costs of raw materials, labor and land. Crowdfunding platforms like Arrived have made it easier for average Americans to invest in rental properties without the need for a hefty down payment or the burden of property management. With Arrived, you can invest in shares of rental homes with as little as $100, all without the hassle of mowing lawns, fixing leaky faucets or handling difficult tenants. The process is simple: browse a curated selection of homes that have been vetted for their appreciation and income potential. Once you find a property you like, select the number of shares you'd like to purchase, and then sit back as you start receiving rental income deposits from your investment. Another option is First National Realty Partners (FNRP), which targets necessity-based commercial real estate. The platform lets accredited investors own a share of institutional-quality properties leased by national brands like Whole Foods, CVS, Kroger and Walmart. Investors can enjoy the potential to collect stable, grocery store-anchored income every quarter. What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Sign in to access your portfolio
