Pivot

Elon's Big Loss, Trump's Stock Trades, and OpenAI vs. Apple

with Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway
19 May 2026 18 min read 1h 8m

Elon Musk lost a unanimous jury verdict in his lawsuit against OpenAI over breach of non-profit mission—a case the hosts called an obvious layup. Meanwhile, OpenAI is considering legal action against Apple for poor ChatGPT placement, and Americans are increasingly protesting AI data centers as symbols of wealth inequality and corporate overreach.

Scott Galloway
“I think the jury can't possibly side with him. I mean, ultimately, I don't think they proved anything. And it's a sort of he said, he said kind of thing. And Elon's the most loathsome of the pair, right? By far, by a country mile.”
Galloway explains why the jury verdict against Musk was predictable before the verdict was announced
▶ 0:53
Kara Swisher
“I think we now need alternative minimum taxes of 60 or 70% on anything over a billion dollars for an individual because these individuals are under the impression that they are not subject to the standards of Western society, decency or any or the law.”
Swisher calls for extreme tax measures after the Musk lawsuit and discusses billionaire behavior
▶ 2:27
Scott Galloway
“Americans see their prices going up and they're not participating in the wealth creation of AI. And it's just a proxy for income inequality that, okay, I hear about you know, Anthropic is worth a trillion dollars. San Francisco real estate prices are booming, jet sales are booming. There are 28-year-olds who are lucky enough to get a job in coding at OpenAI who are selling 7, 10, 15 million dollars in stock. And I can't afford detergent.”
Galloway explains the real reason Americans oppose data centers—not environmental concerns, but rage over inequality
▶ 22:15
Scott Galloway
“Trump bought $500,000 in Nvidia stock one week before his Commerce Department approved Nvidia chip sales to China. He bought somewhere between 1 and 5 million the week before they announced a major deal with Meta. He's He bought Dell stock before he started carving up TikTok and giving it to, wait for it, Michael Dell.”
Galloway outlines Trump's pattern of trading stocks immediately before policy announcements that benefit those companies
▶ 30:22
Kara Swisher
“This is like there's a I literally feel like he's going to start taking milk money from kids like at some point if you remember that that expression. I just This is like Is there anywhere he doesn't cheat and advantage himself in a way that's like really obvious grift, like obvious and really kind of upsetting grift?”
Swisher expresses frustration about Trump's pervasive conflicts of interest and apparent immunity from consequences
▶ 29:19
Pivot is a weekly podcast from New York Magazine and Vox Media that features Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway discussing the week's biggest business, tech, and culture news. The hosts offer sharp, unfiltered commentary on corporate power, inequality, and the influence of tech billionaires on society.
1
Distribution power trumps AI quality OpenAI's threatened lawsuit against Apple reveals a harsh truth: even dominant AI companies need favorable placement. Apple's control of iOS and Siri gives it leverage to extract payments from AI providers or default to Google's Gemini. This distribution advantage echoes historical battles (Levi's vs. JCPenney) and shows that AI success depends less on technology than on user access.
2
Data center opposition masks inequality rage The bipartisan backlash against AI data centers isn't really about environmental concerns—it's a proxy for wealth inequality. Americans see 28-year-old coders getting $15M in stock, while they struggle with food costs. Data centers become visible targets for diffuse anger about who benefits from AI wealth creation and who doesn't.
3
Trump's trading pattern suggests systematic conflicts Making 3,700 stock trades in Q1 2026—40 per day—Trump shows a dramatic shift from his lifetime pattern. His purchases of Nvidia, Dell, and Oracle closely precede policy announcements benefiting those companies, suggesting potential insider trading. The reliance on norms rather than law has left presidential conflicts of interest largely unpoliced since LBJ.