Big Tech Is Now Advising the White House — What Could Go Wrong? | Prof G Markets

President Trump has named 13 tech industry leaders to the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, including Mark Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, Marc Andreessen, and Larry Ellison. This marks a sharp departure from historical precedent: since FDR established the first such council in 1933, appointees have typically been academics. Now, the White House is explicitly choosing «doers» — people actively building and profiting from the technologies they'll advise on.

The stated mandate is to ensure «all Americans thrive in the golden age of innovation.» Co-chairing the council are David Sacks, whose tenure as AI and crypto czar has ended, and Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The shift reflects a broader frustration within the private sector about the Biden administration's approach: decision-makers who had never run a P&L or balance sheet were perceived as disconnected from the realities of business.

Yet the move raises immediate questions about regulatory capture. The people advising on AI policy are the same people building AI companies, investing in AI startups, and standing to profit enormously from lenient regulation. Whether this represents pragmatic expertise or a dangerous conflict of interest depends largely on one's view of where the greater risk lies: in ignorance or in self-interest.

SpaceX is reportedly preparing to file its IPO prospectus imminently, targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and aiming to raise $75 billion. That would make it the seventh most valuable company in the world — more valuable than Meta, and even more valuable than Tesla. Earlier this year, Elon Musk merged xAI into SpaceX, which had already absorbed the social media platform X, raising the question of whether Tesla will be next.

John McNeill, former Tesla president and author of The Algorithm, outlined three reasons why a merger makes sense. First, it's simpler to run one public company than two. Second, combining the entities would bring AI resources closer to Tesla's core autonomy business in humanoid robots and self-driving cars. Third, it would solve Musk's frustration with his ownership stake at Tesla by consolidating control under SpaceX's cap table. McNeill estimates there's a better than 50% chance this happens.

Yet the path forward is complicated. Taking SpaceX public first — before merging with Tesla — invites an extra layer of regulatory scrutiny and makes any subsequent combination more difficult. The valuation itself hinges on retail investors looking past traditional financial metrics. SpaceX has roughly $15 billion in revenue but is seeking a valuation that implies extraordinary future growth. As McNeill put it, «I've never met somebody as good at their promote as Elon.»