The Man in the Mirror

On January 20, 2010, the Department of Energy signed a $465 million loan with Tesla Motors, a company whose only product was a $109,000 Roadster. The next day, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United.

That spring, TIME put Elon Musk on its list of the hundred most influential people in the world. Jon Favreau wrote the entry. He was directing the Iron Man movies, and when he could not figure out how to make Tony Stark seem real, Robert Downey Jr. told him, “We need to sit down with Elon Musk.” Favreau has said Stark is based on the comic book, not on Musk. But Downey wanted the meeting because Musk was “a guy who can give us some insight into what it’d really be like to be Tony Stark.” Favreau’s verdict in TIME: “a paragon of enthusiasm, good humor and curiosity — a Renaissance man in an era that needs them.”

In May, Iron Man 2 opened with Musk in it, playing himself at a party in Monaco. Stark walks up to him.

“Elon, how’s it going? Those Merlin engines are fantastic.”
“Thank you. Yeah, I’ve got an idea for an electric jet.”
“Then we’ll make it work.”

On June 29, Tesla went public at $17 a share.

That was the year. Public money, a movie star’s admiration, a stock ticker, and a reputation as the closest thing America had to a real-life Iron Man. He had the keys.

Nobody Did This to Him

Here is the claim. Musk’s story is a tragedy in the strict sense. The hero falls, and the fall is his own doing. Nobody took the reputation from him. He had other people’s genius, the public’s money, and the goodwill of millions of people who wanted the future he was selling, and he spent the goodwill himself.

The bill is arriving now. Alex Gibney’s documentary Musk is in theaters. House Democrats are drawing up investigations of his time running the Department of Government Efficiency and of his companies’ federal contracts. He has put nearly $450 million into the midterms, much of it into races that decide who would hold those gavels.

And one night in February, the week his net worth reached $852 billion, he posted this:

“Whoever said ‘money can’t buy happiness’ really knew what they were talking about 😔”

Those Merlin Engines

Tony Stark praised the engines. Musk did not build them.

Tom Mueller did. He was SpaceX’s first employee, and he had been building rocket engines as an amateur before Musk hired him. He led the team that designed the Merlin and the Draco thrusters, and he retired in 2020. Gwynne Shotwell, who joined in 2002, has been SpaceX’s president since 2008 and runs the company day to day.

Tesla was not Musk’s idea either. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning started it, and it was incorporated in July 2003. Musk invested and joined the board in April 2004. By November 2007, Eberhard was out. In 2009 he sued, alleging that Musk had “set out to re-write history by falsely claiming that he was the founder or the creator of Tesla Motors.” The settlement that fall made Musk one of five official co-founders. The title came out of a lawsuit.

Eberhard is one of the people who talks in Gibney’s film.

The money matters too. The Washington Post counted at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits flowing to Tesla and SpaceX since 2003. I went through that ledger in He Can’t Have It Both Ways, and I will not do it again here.

Musk brought money, nerve, and a talent for raising more of both. That is not nothing. It is also not the Merlin engine. The visionaries in this story are mostly people whose names you had to read in this section to learn.

What He Spent

Start with the car. In 2025, Tesla’s sales fell for the second year in a row, about 9 percent, and China’s BYD passed it as the world’s largest electric-vehicle maker. Reuters listed the reasons as competition, the end of the federal tax credit, and brand backlash. YouGov’s net impression score for Tesla among American adults was -20 in September 2025. A year later it is -6. Third-quarter deliveries this year were down about 2 percent from a year earlier. The brand is better than it was, and more Americans still think badly of it than well.

Then there is Cursor, the coding tool I loved until SpaceX bought it and started steering every new chat toward Grok. That is its own essay, Keep Working on the Plan.

And then there is X.

The Promise

On April 26, 2022, the day after Twitter’s board accepted his offer, Musk explained what he meant by free speech:

“By ‘free speech’, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

Hold X to that sentence.

On November 6, 2022, he wrote: “My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk.” The account was @ElonJet, run by a college student who posted public flight data. Public flight data is legal. On December 14, X suspended it. The next day it suspended several journalists who had covered him. “Same doxxing rules apply to ‘journalists’ as to everyone else,” Musk wrote. He reversed the journalist suspensions after a poll.

In June 2023 he announced that “the words ‘cis’ or ‘cisgender’ are considered slurs on this platform.” By May 2024, posts using them drew a full-screen warning. TechCrunch tested it and found that some actual slurs against Black, transgender, and Jewish people went through without one. A word was restricted because he disliked it, not because it broke a law.

In September 2024, X suspended the journalist Ken Klippenstein for linking to the leaked vetting dossier on JD Vance. X said the problem was private information in the document. Klippenstein said he was told the ban was permanent and stayed banned after he redacted it. Musk had spent late 2022 publishing the internal “Twitter Files” to show that the old Twitter’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story was censorship.

The line was never the law. It moved with whatever bothered him.

The Advertisers

On November 4, 2022, the same day he laid off about half of Twitter’s staff, Musk posted: “Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation.” Then: “They’re trying to destroy free speech in America.” Three weeks later he announced a general amnesty for suspended accounts.

On November 15, 2023, a user posted that Jewish communities were pushing “dialectical hatred against whites.” Musk replied: “You have said the actual truth.” The same week, Media Matters, a progressive watchdog group, reported that ads from major brands were running next to pro-Nazi posts. IBM pulled its ads. Disney, Apple, Comcast, Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, Lionsgate, and Sony followed.

Two weeks later, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked him about it on stage at the New York Times DealBook Summit.

“If somebody’s going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is. Hey, Bob, if you’re in the audience.”

Bob was Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, who had spoken on the same stage earlier that day. Then Musk told Sorkin what would happen next:

“What this advertising boycott is going to do, it is going to kill the company. And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company and we’ll document it in great detail.”

X does more than document. It sues. It had already sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that researches hate speech online, over its reports on X. In March 2024, Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the case: “This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.” X’s appeal was argued on September 30, and the panel sounded skeptical. It has not ruled.

X also sued the World Federation of Advertisers and brands including Mars, CVS, Lego, and Shell, calling the pullback an illegal boycott. On March 26, 2026, Judge Jane Boyle dismissed it with prejudice, because X had not shown the kind of injury antitrust law covers. X settled with the federation. Its appeal against the brands is pending in the Fifth Circuit, with a brief from the Justice Department on its side.

Deciding where your money goes and what your name sits next to is speech too. His free speech covers the posts. It does not cover the people who decline to pay for them.

Grok’s Output, Your Fault

Grok is the AI chatbot built into X. In the first days of January 2026, people discovered they could reply to a photo of a real woman and ask Grok to put her in a bikini, or less, and Grok would post the result. Reuters counted 102 such requests in a single ten-minute window. Copyleaks, a firm that detects AI content, sampled about 6,700 sexualized images an hour over one 24-hour period. Some of the people in the photos were children.

Musk answered with laugh-cry emojis and asked Grok to put him in a bikini too. X’s first fix was to limit image editing to paying subscribers. On January 14 he wrote that he was “not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok. Literally zero,” and added: “Grok does not spontaneously generate images. It does so only according to user request.” The California attorney general opened an investigation the same day. X eventually blocked Grok from these edits in places where they are illegal, after regulators in several countries had moved.

The next day, January 15, new X terms took effect. X had announced them in December: “you are responsible for the content you post and create, including prompts, outputs, and/or information obtained when using X.” Grok writes the answer. You own it.

Upload It Anyway

In October 2024, Musk asked his followers to “try submitting x-ray, PET, MRI or other medical images to Grok for analysis,” and said it was “already quite accurate.” On February 17, 2026, he went further: “You can just take a picture of your medical data or upload the file to get a second opinion from Grok.”

People asked Grok in the replies whether that was safe. Grok answered:

“Grok is not HIPAA compliant, and we strongly advise against uploading sensitive medical data. For health advice, always consult a qualified professional.”

HIPAA is the federal law that protects your medical records at a hospital or an insurer. It does not cover a chatbot. xAI’s own privacy policy says the company does not aim to collect health or biometric information and asks “that you do not provide us with any such information.”

The machine gave the honest answer. The man gave the sales pitch. The people who take him at his word are the ones whose scans end up on somebody else’s server.

The Salute and the Socialist Line

On January 20, 2025, Musk spoke to a crowd at Capital One Arena in Washington after the inauguration. He put his right hand over his heart and threw the arm out straight, palm down. He turned to the crowd behind him and did it again. Then he said, “My heart goes out to you.”

That night he called the uproar “dirty tricks” and wrote, “The ’everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired.” The Anti-Defamation League said it looked like “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute.”

Three days later he posted:

“Don’t say Hess to Nazi accusations! Some people will Goebbels anything down! Stop Gőring your enemies! His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler! Bet you did nazi that coming 😂”

Hess was Hitler’s deputy. Goebbels ran the propaganda ministry. Göring built the Gestapo. Himmler ran the SS and the machinery of the Holocaust. A little later, Musk added: “When I see the troll emoji, it’s like looking in the mirror.” The ADL’s CEO, the man whose organization had defended him on Monday, wrote on Thursday: “@elonmusk, the Holocaust is not a joke.”

He did not stop at puns. On January 24, 2026, he posted: “Hitler was a far left socialist. His party was called the national socialists.” On August 8: “Hitler was a left-wing socialist.” Then: “Therefore, socialists are Hitler. Inescapable logic.” On October 23: “Hitler was a far left socialist. Literally in the name of his party!”

The name was the point, and not in the way he means. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party, in the words of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, “sought to woo German workers away from socialism and communism and commit them to its antisemitic and anti-Marxist ideology.” The word Socialist was bait. Once the party had power, the first prisoners at Dachau, in March 1933, were mostly Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unionists. On May 2, 1933, the SA and police seized the unions’ offices and dissolved them. By July 14, every party but the Nazis was banned.

When Musk points at the party’s name, he is repeating the party’s recruiting pitch.

I cannot see inside his head. I can see the order of events. He asked for the benefit of the doubt on the gesture. He answered the doubt with Nazi puns. Then he spent a year repeating the Nazis’ own branding to more than two hundred million followers. After that, “it wasn’t a Nazi salute” is no longer a claim he gets to make on credit. He is choosing to look stupid about this, and the choice is what makes it his.

That is the arrogance at the center of the tragedy. He thought he could do it on that stage, in that week, and get away with it. In a narrow sense, he has.

The Break and the Return

In May 2025, Musk told Bloomberg he planned to do “a lot less” political spending. “I think I’ve done enough.” In June he broke with Trump over the spending bill and posted that Trump was “in the Epstein files,” without offering evidence. He floated a new party. By the end of the year, he and Trump had made up.

By mid-October 2026, his midterm giving was close to $450 million, mostly to Republicans and his own America PAC. CNBC laid out the stakes for him plainly. Republican control keeps the environment friendly to his companies. Democratic control of either chamber could bring subpoenas into his businesses, his federal contracts, and his time at DOGE.

The Senator He Is Buying

The biggest single bet is in Texas.

On September 9, Musk gave $75 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, the main super PAC of the Senate Republican leadership. The next day the fund sent $75 million to Texas PAC, a group backing Attorney General Ken Paxton for the U.S. Senate. On September 23 Musk gave $83 million more, and on September 24 the fund sent $83 million to Texas PAC. His trust had already given $10 million to Lone Star Liberty, another pro-Paxton PAC. Paxton’s own fundraising had trailed his Democratic opponent, James Talarico, $16.8 million to $72 million. Musk’s money is most of what is keeping the race close.

Paxton’s record, without adjectives: a Texas grand jury indicted him for securities fraud in 2015, months after he took office as attorney general. The case ended in 2024 with a pretrial deal, 100 hours of community service, and nearly $300,000 in restitution. In 2023 the Texas House impeached him on articles including bribery and abuse of office, centered on favors for a donor named Nate Paul. The Texas Senate acquitted him. In 2025, a judge awarded $6.6 million to four former aides whom Paxton fired after they reported him to the FBI. Paxton had stopped contesting the facts, did not appeal, and has not admitted wrongdoing. He has never been convicted.

His own party said it first. The impeachment vote in the Texas House was 121 to 23. Sixty of its 85 Republicans voted yes, including the Speaker and every representative from Paxton’s home county. All 23 no votes were Republicans too. In August 2025, when the Senate Leadership Fund was backing Senator John Cornyn against Paxton in the primary, its spokesman said: “Ken Paxton’s toxic record only takes resources away from growing the Senate majority.” Paxton beat Cornyn in the May runoff by nearly 30 points. Thirteen months after that statement, the same fund was passing Musk’s $158 million to him.

I do not have to guess what Musk expects from Paxton. Paxton has already shown him. On November 20, 2023, X sued Media Matters over its report on ads next to pro-Nazi posts. That evening, Paxton’s office announced a fraud investigation into Media Matters, calling it “a radical anti-free speech organization,” and demanded its records: communications about Musk and X, internal operations, and funding sources. A federal judge blocked the investigation as likely retaliation for the group’s reporting. In May 2025, the D.C. Circuit affirmed. X’s own lawsuits against its critics have mostly been thrown out of court. Paxton tried to do the same job with the power of the state.

Then there is Adam Hoffman. Hoffman, a Waco attorney, was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a young boy. The local district attorney had recused himself, so Paxton’s office prosecuted. The trial ended in a hung jury. The boy did not want to testify again, and Paxton’s office offered a deal: two misdemeanors and time served, which came to one day in jail. Hoffman signed a confession that he touched the boy “with the intent to arouse or gratify my sexual desire.” The boy’s mother reluctantly agreed. The visiting judge, who had served on the bench as a Republican, did not. “One day. Seriously?” The prosecutors came back with 30 days. At the sentencing, the mother changed her answer: “It’s just not enough. He’s dangerous. This isn’t justice, and I can’t do it.” The judge raised it to 60 days. Hoffman served 29 and did not have to register as a sex offender in Texas.

Talarico called it an “Epstein-style sweetheart deal.” He said, “We don’t need any more pedophile protectors in our government.” PolitiFact rated his claim that Paxton “let Hoffman off the hook” Mostly True. Talarico asked for the case files. In July, Paxton’s office refused to release them.

Musk has posted: “No one pushed harder than me to have the Epstein files released.”

Above the Law, for Now

So far, the law has not landed on him. Here are three times it came close.

In January 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Musk for disclosing his growing Twitter stake late in 2022. The delay, the SEC said, saved him about $150 million at other investors’ expense. The judge rejected his motion to dismiss. Then, in May 2026, the SEC amended its complaint with Musk’s consent. It added his revocable trust as a defendant, dropped its demand that he give up the gains, and deleted the $150 million allegation. On July 8, the trust agreed to pay $1.5 million, about 1 percent of the money the SEC had said he saved. The next day the SEC dismissed Musk personally. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan had said in May that the deal raised “red flags,” including whether he was getting “special treatment.” She approved it with “significant misgivings” and wrote:

“Whether the Executive Branch (through the SEC) has done enough to hold Mr. Musk to account for his alleged violation is, like many other issues, for our citizenry to decide at the ballot box.”

In March 2025, before Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court election, Musk posted that entrance to his talk in Green Bay was “limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court Election,” and that he would “personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” About twelve hours later he rewrote it: the event was for people who signed his petition, and the checks were for two “spokesmen for the petition.” The Wisconsin Elections Commission, which is bipartisan, voted 5 to 1 that there was probable cause he broke the state’s election bribery law. On August 25, 2026, the special prosecutor, Tim Gruenke, declined to charge him. The first post was “poorly worded and ambiguous,” Gruenke wrote, it was corrected quickly, and nobody was paid for voting. “I do not believe a jury would convict Elon Musk of a crime.” He added that “without the famous name attached and the large dollar amounts involved,” it was a simple case.

In October 2024, at a rally in Harrisburg, Musk told a Pennsylvania crowd that “we are going to be awarding a million dollars, randomly, to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election.” Philadelphia’s district attorney sued, calling it an illegal lottery. In court, Musk’s PAC testified that the winners were not random. They were vetted and picked to be paid spokespeople. The judge ruled it was not a lottery, precisely because it was not chance. What he told the crowd and what his PAC told the judge cannot both be true, and the second one won.

None of these is a conviction, and I will not pretend otherwise. The pattern is the point: a penalty of 1 percent, a prosecutor’s bet that no jury would convict, a giveaway saved in court by admitting it was not what he said on stage. I call that corruption in the old sense, a system bent toward the man who can pay, not as a legal charge.

It Has Been Beaten Before

It is easy to feel like we are in a race against time, and that the billionaires will rewrite the laws before anyone can stop them. The record says otherwise, with a warning attached.

In 1899, state legislatures still chose U.S. senators, and William A. Clark, a Montana copper king, wanted a seat. The legislature gave him one. A Senate committee heard ninety-six witnesses describe bribes from $240 to $100,000, and in April 1900 it concluded unanimously that his election was void. On May 15, with the votes against him, Clark resigned. Mark Twain called him “as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag.” In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, the first federal ban on corporate campaign contributions. Scandals like Clark’s fed the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, which took Senate seats away from legislatures and gave them to voters. A copper king buying a Senate seat is the exact problem the amendment was written to end. Citizens United, the day after Tesla’s loan, opened a new door to it.

Here is the warning. In January 1901, a new Montana legislature, most of whose winning candidates Clark had funded, sent him back to the Senate. He served until 1907. Those reforms took decades, and they can be undone.

Here is the recent proof that they can still win. In Wisconsin’s April 2025 race, Musk and groups he backed spent more than $21 million for the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel. Susan Crawford beat him by 10 points. Voters outnumbered the checks.

Money Is Not a Vote

The SEC judge put it on the ballot box, and the ballot box is a week away. On November 3, voters decide the Texas Senate seat, and whether anyone in Congress will have the power to ask Musk questions under oath.

If enough seats can be bought, we do not have a country. We have a feeding frenzy for the few people rich enough to buy them, people whose fortunes were built on public contracts and other people’s work. Vote for candidates he has not bought.

I wrote about Russell Hantz in Just Enough to Believe. Russell had millions of fan votes and got zero from the jury. “Money is great. It is not a vote.”

The Bill

Gibney’s Musk premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September. It runs three hours and forty-five minutes. Justine Musk, his first wife, talks in it, and so does Ashley St. Clair, the mother of one of his children. Musk spent hours on X calling Gibney a “bitter old man who lost the plot long ago” and a “horrible human.” The distributor moved the release up a week because of the demand. It opened in theaters on October 9.

On October 20, Politico reported that House Democrats were planning investigations if they win the House next week: his time at DOGE, his companies’ contracts, and his handling of Starshield, the military version of Starlink, in Ukraine. On October 22, Musk answered:

“Live by the sword, die by the sword. Those who pick fights with me should understand that I will find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them, not just their puppets.”

The Washington Post headline the next day was “As Republicans brace for election losses, Musk prepares for war.” The same day he posted that Hitler was a far-left socialist. Nobody knows yet how any of this ends. He is behaving like a man who expects a bill.

“I Agree with the Teachings of Jesus”

In February 2026, someone on X asked who would lead Musk to Christ. He replied: “I agree with the teachings of Jesus.” He has called himself a cultural Christian before. I am taking the sentence at its word.

Jesus gave a standard for this. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15–16). The same chapter opens, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” I am not judging his soul. I am holding his conduct up against the words he chose.

Jesus told a story about a rich man whose land produced so much that he had nowhere to put it. “I will pull down my barns and build larger ones,” the man says, “and there I will store all my grain and my goods.” That night God tells him his life is being demanded of him. “So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God” (Luke 12:16–21). Forbes has calculated that Musk has disbursed about 0.06 percent of his fortune to charity. The barns are in the other essay.

Of the religious leaders of his day, Jesus said: “do whatever they teach you and follow it, but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach” (Matthew 23:3). Musk manages the reverse. His own company’s fine print teaches correctly: do not upload your health data. He tells people to do it anyway. The word Jesus uses for those leaders a few verses later, hypocrites, meant stage actors. I wrote about that in The Oldest Booking Sheet.

So why do so many Christians not see it? The scripture Jesus read already answered that. “You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds officials and subverts the cause of those who are in the right” (Exodus 23:8). Jesus said he came not to abolish that law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). The verse does not stop at calling a bribe wrong. It says a bribe blinds. Once you are getting something from a powerful man, whether money, access, or a win for your side, the facts that cut against him start to sound like an attack. I wrote about that in The Blank They Fill In.

Jesus also told what it looks like when a rich man sees clearly. Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector, climbs a sycamore tree to get a look at him. Jesus invites himself to dinner. Zacchaeus stands up and says, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much” (Luke 19:1–10). Four times as much. The SEC settled for 1 percent.

Apply the fruit test to the race his money is buying.

In July 2025, Angela Paxton, a Texas state senator and Ken Paxton’s wife of 38 years, filed for divorce “on biblical grounds.” Her petition alleges adultery; his impeachment trial had already aired evidence of an affair. Her statement said: “I do not believe that it honors God or is loving to myself, my children, or Ken to remain in the marriage.” Add the Hoffman deal and the Media Matters investigation.

James Talarico is a former middle-school teacher and a student at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. His grandfather was a Baptist preacher. “Jesus gave us two commandments to follow,” he told Brentwood Baptist Church in Houston this summer. “Love God and love neighbor.” His campaign slogan is “It’s time to start flipping tables,” after Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple (Matthew 21:12–13). The richest man in the world is spending to beat that slogan.

Paxton has questioned Talarico’s faith. At the state Republican convention, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said that “if he campaigns against God as he’s been doing, he’s going to hell for sure.” That is the verdict on a soul that I just said I would not issue. They issued it. I am only comparing what each man has done.

Here is the man who says “I agree with the teachings of Jesus.” He put $158 million behind the candidate whose own wife said staying with him would not honor God, against a seminarian who preaches love of neighbor. How is that honoring Jesus?

A man ran up to Jesus, knelt, and asked what he had to do to inherit eternal life. He had kept the commandments since he was young. “You lack one thing,” Jesus told him. “Go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” The man “was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions” (Mark 10:17–22).

The Working Model

On November 19, 2022, Musk ran a poll on whether to bring Donald Trump back to Twitter. About 52 percent said yes. “The people have spoken,” he posted. “Trump will be reinstated. Vox Populi, Vox Dei.” The voice of the people is the voice of God. A month later, the journalists came back the same way.

X is the institution most completely under his control, with no voters to answer to. We have watched how the rules work there: the plane, the slur list, the advertisers, the terms that hand you Grok’s output. His politics move the same way: “I think I’ve done enough,” and then nearly half a billion dollars; Trump in the Epstein files, and then Trump again. DOGE was a four-month trial run of that style inside the federal government, and I went through what it delivered already.

So here is the question. Are you comfortable putting the country’s laws in the hands of a man whose rules change with how he woke up that morning? We do not have to imagine what that looks like. We have a working model. It is called X. Who would call X a great place?

Three days after the arena, he wrote: “When I see the troll emoji, it’s like looking in the mirror.” One night in February 2026, worth $852 billion, he wrote: “Whoever said ‘money can’t buy happiness’ really knew what they were talking about 😔”. Two emoji. One face.