Bernie Sanders THREATENS Elon Musk — Seconds Later He Crashes Out, Regrets It
Musk Claps Back At Bernie Sanders Over Massive ‘AI’ Tax Proposal
Millions of Americans may now have indirect exposure to Elon Musk’s SpaceX through retirement accounts after the rocket and satellite company joined the Nasdaq-100 following its blockbuster public offering earlier this year.
But for some, that’s unacceptable—including Congress’ undeclared communist senator, Bernie Sanders.
The Vermont “independent” introduced legislation in June that would establish an American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Under Sanders’ proposal, the largest artificial-intelligence companies would face a one-time tax equal to 50% of their equity, paid in stock rather than cash.
The shares would be placed in a government-managed sovereign wealth fund overseen by a seven-member commission. Sanders estimates the fund could initially be worth roughly $7 trillion.
The legislation would apply once qualifying companies reach $200 million in annual AI-related sales.
Sanders says the proposal is intended to ensure that Americans receive a share of the wealth generated by artificial intelligence rather than leaving ownership concentrated among a small number of technology executives and investors.
The fund would distribute 5% of its value annually for purposes including direct payments to Americans and spending on health care, education and housing.
“One man (Mr. Musk) owns more wealth than the bottom half of American households,” Sanders whined on the Musk-owned X platform.
“Meanwhile, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, nearly 800,000 are homeless and 85 million are uninsured,” he added. “We can do better. We must do better.”
Communism and socialism – Sanders’ “solutions” – have failed in every country those economic models have been implemented.
Meanwhile, Musk has pushed back against criticism centered on the size of his fortune, arguing that much of his wealth consists of ownership stakes in SpaceX and Tesla rather than cash that could simply be spent.
That distinction has become increasingly relevant now that SpaceX is publicly traded.
A large portion of Musk’s wealth rises and falls along with the market values of companies he owns, while retirement funds and other institutional investors may own shares in those same businesses.
“I have stock in SpaceX and Tesla, not some big pile of cash,” Musk wrote on X in response to Sanders.
“As my companies do more and more useful things, their value increases proportionate to their projected usefulness. All shareholders benefit along the way, including most retirement programs,” he added.
I have stock in SpaceX and Tesla, not some big pile of cash.
As my companies do more and more useful things, their value increases proportionate to their projected usefulness. All shareholders benefit along the way, including most retirement programs.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 5, 2026
SpaceX began trading publicly under the ticker SPCX on June 12 after pricing its initial public offering at $135 per share.
The company ultimately sold nearly 639 million shares, including an underwriters’ option, raising approximately $85.7 billion in what Nasdaq described as the largest IPO in history.
Less than a month later, Nasdaq announced that SpaceX would join the Nasdaq-100 Index beginning July 7.
The index tracks 100 of the largest nonfinancial companies listed on Nasdaq and is followed by more than 200 investment products representing more than $800 billion in assets.
That means retirement savers who own funds tracking the Nasdaq-100 — either directly or through certain broader retirement products — may now hold SpaceX shares without having specifically chosen the company.
Popular exchange-traded funds such as the Invesco QQQ and QQQM are designed to track the Nasdaq-100 and therefore must adjust their holdings when the index changes.
The same can be true for some 401(k) and target-date funds that include Nasdaq-100 investments as part of their portfolios.
However, not every retirement account owns SpaceX.
A worker whose 401(k) is invested exclusively in an S&P 500 index fund, for example, would not automatically gain direct SpaceX exposure simply because the company joined the Nasdaq-100.
Investors would need to examine their individual fund holdings and benchmarks to determine whether SpaceX is included.
SpaceX’s move into retirement portfolios comes as Musk’s enormous paper wealth has become part of a broader political debate.
Democrats believe punishing Musk and other wealthy Americans for their success is the answer, while Republicans counter that government policies should reflect the country’s capitalist founding and encourage all Americans to do better.
Letitia 'No One's Above the Law' James Just Got Sued And You Won't Stop Clapping
Letitia ‘No One’s Above the Law’ James Just Got Sued And You Won’t Stop Clapping
New York Attorney General Letitia James loves to sermonize that “No one is above the law,” but her record shows she really means “No one named Trump is above my political agenda.” Her entire campaign was a single-issue crusade built on the promise to “Get Trump,” and she delivered by filing a bizarre, victimless “fraud” case against him that even the banks involved openly rejected. Not one financial institution claimed harm. Not one lender said they wouldn’t do business with him again.
But that didn’t stop Judge Arthur Engoron—whose bias was obvious from the bench—from imposing an eye-watering, politically convenient fine of nearly half a billion dollars. It was so grotesquely disproportionate that an appeals court finally tossed it in August, delivering a much-needed reality check to James’s lawfare spectacle.
That’s Letitia James in a nutshell—always pushing the ethical limits, always using the weight of her office to intimidate anyone she marks as a political foe. Bullying isn’t an unfortunate byproduct of her approach; it is her approach.
So it’s hardly shocking that a school board chair in New York is now suing the attorney general, accusing James of threatening to oust board members who refused to bow to the progressive orthodoxy on allowing biological men into women’s sports:
The alleged threats came in a “guidance letter” [from James] that warned of the removal of any school board member who uses the wrong pronoun for a trans person, or if they allow students to publicly speak out at school board meetings about their fears and discomfort with student trans athletes using the wrong locker room for their biological sex.
A plaintiff in the suit, Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, alleged she was told that James’ office instructed her to mute and dismiss any board meeting speaker that expressed views opposing trans athletes in girls’ locker rooms and sports.
Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, alleged she was told that James' office instructed her to mute and dismiss any board meeting speaker that expressed views opposing trans athletes in girls' locker rooms and sports.
Wachter says James’ intimidation tactics are designed to intimidate her and others into silence:
“They’re saying if we allow this discussion in our board meetings, she can come in and remove us from the board,” Wachter told Fox News Digital. “They want me to stop public comment and stop them from speaking.”
Wachter added that trans students were not being directly named in any board meetings, and conversations were only based around the feelings and concerns of female students.
James claimed that school board members can be removed when “they willfully neglect their duty or violate legal protections for students in their districts.” She went on to add that the state’s Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) bars harassment and bullying.
Nevertheless, Attorney Kim Hermann from the Southeastern Legal Foundation has a note for James – There is an important constitutional principle known as the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment here reigns true, and so whether or not you have these state laws, a state cannot come in and just erase the First Amendment out of the Constitution,” Hermann said, per Fox News. “Whether or not statements and discussions about transgender and these different policies actually violate those state laws is absolutely irrelevant for what we’re talking about in this lawsuit.
James has shown time and again that she’s not an impartial public servant but a partisan enforcer, eager to weaponize her office against anyone who lands on her enemies list. She doesn’t just stretch her authority — she twists it into a political bludgeon.
If there’s any justice left in New York, this lawsuit will stick and finally force some accountability. Frankly, it’s long past time someone pushed back.
