The brewing dispute between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has escalated rapidly in the past 72 hours. Will it devolve into open investigations or legal attacks against any of the companies in Elon Musk's business empire? Resolves YES if one or more such retaliatory investigations or executive orders is targeted against Musk's companies (or any similar attack that substantially curtails their operations) I will exercise my judgement to determine what is or isn't retaliatory - a normal investigation might not qualify here. I'm looking for a dynamic like the executive orders against Democratic law firms or the attacks on Harvard to qualify for a YES resolution. Since there is an element of subjectivity here, I will not bet.
Update 2025-06-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator provided further examples of their judgment on potential scenarios:
The following would not be sufficient to resolve YES:
Removal of an EV mandate, if not obviously retaliatory.
Elon Musk losing his security clearance (not considered an investigation or an attack on a company).
NASA deprioritizing SpaceX contracts, or being directed to do so (not considered an "investigation or legal attack").
The creator is looking for stronger actions, such as:
Attempts to cut SpaceX's FAA certifications.
Actions undermining the ability of Musk's companies to conduct private business, not solely impacting government-related business.
Update 2025-06-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided further clarification on scenarios involving security clearances:
While Elon Musk himself losing security clearance would not resolve the market YES (as it's not considered an attack on a company).
If SpaceX employees (other than Musk) started losing their security clearance, this would meet the resolution criteria.
1,000
3.00how would the following resolve to you?
Trump removes EV mandate
(counterpoint: was already planned)
Musk loses security clearance
(counterpoint: could be standard practice among departing government employees)
nasa deprioritizes spaceX contracts going forward
nasa directed to deprioritize spaceX contracts going forward
just trying to get a feel for where your judgment is here
@KJW_01294
1. No, not obviously retaliatory.
2. No, not an investigation or really an attack even. (Musk for a long time didn't have security clearance even when his own companies were working on classified stuff).
3. Not an "investigation or legal attack"
4. Same as above.
I'm really I'm looking for something stronger like, for instance, trying to cut SpaceX's FAA certifications or undermining their ability to do private business, not just with the government.
@Balasar Just to further clarify, if SpaceX employees that are not Musk started losing security clearance then that would meet the resolution criteria, but Musk himself losing it is justifiable in ways that are not necessarily related to the criteria.