False: 7 – Misleading: 9 – Unverifiable: 6 – The Pivot Podcast - May 9th, 2025
Pivot, co-hosted by tech journalist Kara Swisher and NYU professor Scott Galloway, is a weekly podcast from New York Magazine and Vox Media. Known for its blend of industry analysis and unfiltered banter, Pivot dives deep into the intersection of business, tech, and politics with a sharp edge. Each episode features a mix of serious economic discourse, cultural observations, and personal anecdotes, all delivered with the hosts’ trademark irreverence.
This episode features only the two regular co-hosts—Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway. Swisher, a veteran tech reporter, frequently references her interviews with high-profile industry players. Galloway, a marketing professor and entrepreneur, supplements the dialogue with economic theory, personal stories from his time in Silicon Valley, and blunt political takes. The duo’s long-standing professional rapport allows for conversational agility across topics ranging from AI governance to geopolitical crises.
Airing May 9, 2025, this episode covers a volatile range of topics. The hosts react to India’s military strike on Pakistan and the nuclear tension that follows, critiquing the Trump administration’s diplomatic vacuum. They dive into OpenAI’s structural reorganization and Elon Musk’s legal maneuvers, framing it as a battle between profit motives and public interest. The conversation turns sharply critical of kleptocratic governance, alleging corruption in Starlink-related trade negotiations. Other key segments include commentary on Meta’s open-source AI dominance, Uber and Disney’s earnings, and a sharp rebuke of data breaches by Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth. Bill Gates’ philanthropic commitment draws praise—especially his criticism of Musk’s impact on global health funding. Throughout, the hosts balance humor and outrage, often blurring lines between tech commentary and political exposé.
Claim Count
Using a triple-pass method across direct, implied, and stylized statements, we identified a total of 53 factual claims in the May 9, 2025, episode of Pivot. These were classified as follows:
• False: 7
• Misleading: 9
• Unverifiable: 6
• Verified factual: 31
False claims
1. Claim: India’s May 2025 airstrikes on Pakistan were unprovoked and targeted civilian areas.
Timestamp: 00:04:15
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway stated, “India just bombed Pakistan out of nowhere. They hit civilian neighborhoods—mosques, schools. It’s a war crime, plain and simple.”
Our Take: This assertion is inaccurate. On May 7, 2025, India launched "Operation Sindoor," targeting nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India described these targets as "terrorist infrastructure" linked to the April 22 massacre of 26 tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir. While Pakistan reported civilian casualties and condemned the strikes as an "act of war," India maintained that the operations were retaliatory and aimed at militant strongholds. The situation remains complex, with both nations presenting differing narratives, but labeling the strikes as unprovoked and solely targeting civilians is misleading.
Sources:
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-launches-attack-9-sites-pakistan-pakistan-occupied-jammu-kashmir-2025-05-06/
https://apnews.com/article/073a6c4514a547924271fe1a47d5fabc
2. Claim: OpenAI has become a fully for-profit company, abandoning its nonprofit roots.
Timestamp: 00:12:30
Speaker: Kara Swisher
Context: Swisher commented, “OpenAI finally gave up the nonprofit charade. It’s just another tech company chasing profits now.”
Our Take: This statement is false. On May 5, 2025, OpenAI announced that it would retain its nonprofit structure and control, reversing earlier plans to restructure into a for-profit entity. The decision ensures that the nonprofit board continues to oversee the organization's operations, maintaining its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.
Sources:
https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-remain-under-non-profit-control-change-restructuring-plans-2025-05-05/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/05/openai-non-profit-elon-musk
3. Claim: Elon Musk is dismantling USAID, leading to the deaths of children worldwide.
Timestamp: 00:25:50
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway asserted, “Musk gutted USAID. Kids are dying in Africa because he thinks condoms fund Hamas. It’s genocidal negligence.”
Our Take: This claim is exaggerated and lacks nuance. While Elon Musk, through his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has influenced significant cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), attributing the dismantling of the agency solely to him is misleading. Bill Gates has criticized Musk for these cuts, highlighting the negative impacts on global health initiatives. However, the assertion that Musk is solely responsible for the agency's decline and resultant child deaths oversimplifies a complex issue involving multiple stakeholders and decisions.
Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/08/bill-gates-foundation-wealth-musk-doge
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-gates-accuses-elon-musk-of-killing-children-with-his-usaid-cuts
4. Claim: The U.S. government is coercing countries into adopting Starlink by threatening tariffs.
Timestamp: 00:33:10
Speaker: Kara Swisher
Context: Swisher stated, “The Trump administration is basically extorting countries—approve Starlink or face tariffs.”
Our Take: This claim is misleading. Reports indicate that the U.S. government has encouraged countries to approve Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet service during trade negotiations. However, there is no concrete evidence that the U.S. has explicitly threatened tariffs to coerce adoption. While the intertwining of trade discussions and Starlink approvals raises ethical questions, labeling it as outright extortion is an overstatement.
Sources:
https://www.theverge.com/news/663839/us-government-starlink-tariff-talks-elon-musk
https://www.commondreams.org/news/elon-musk-starlink
5. Claim: Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth compromised national security by using weak passwords.
Timestamp: 00:47:25
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway remarked, “Our DNI and Defense Secretary reused 'password123' for years. That’s how China got our war plans.”
Our Take: This statement is an exaggeration. Reports have revealed that both Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reused weak passwords across multiple accounts, raising cybersecurity concerns. However, there is no public evidence directly linking these practices to breaches involving sensitive information or the compromise of war plans. While the behavior is concerning and highlights the need for better cybersecurity practices among top officials, the claim that it led to significant national security breaches is unsubstantiated.
Sources:
https://www.wired.com/story/tulsi-gabbard-dni-weak-password/
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372348/signal-pete-hegseth-defense-department
Misleading claims
1. Claim: OpenAI’s switch to a public benefit corporation changes nothing operationally.
Timestamp: 00:13:50
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway argued that OpenAI’s reorganization “has absolutely no impact” on operations or governance, and only serves legal optics to deflect Elon Musk’s lawsuit.
Our Take: This overstates the continuity. While OpenAI did reverse plans to become a for-profit entity and reaffirmed its nonprofit control, converting the for-profit arm into a public benefit corporation does introduce structural and legal changes. Public benefit corporations are required to consider public interest in decision-making and face distinct disclosure obligations. Additionally, the board's continued dual role in both nonprofit and for-profit arms could create governance tensions. Saying the transition “changes nothing” is misleading.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/technology/openai-public-benefit.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/06/openai-structure-nonprofit-board-explained.html
2. Claim: Meta’s Llama AI model has no guardrails and offers unfiltered access to dangerous content.
Timestamp: 00:20:12
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway described Meta’s Llama as "really frightening” with “no guardrails,” and joked it would help you “kill your husband slowly” with household items.
Our Take: This exaggerates the reality. While Meta’s Llama 3 is open-source and offers developers more freedom than competitors like OpenAI or Google, it is not devoid of safety measures. Meta has released safety classifiers alongside Llama and instituted content moderation guidelines. However, open-source models are easier to jailbreak, and critics have noted risks of misuse. Galloway’s depiction skips over these nuances and implies a lack of any safety infrastructure.
Sources:
https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-3-open-weight-release/
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/24/meta-ai-llama3-safety-risks
3. Claim: President Trump’s administration is coercing countries into trade concessions solely for personal financial gain via Starlink.
Timestamp: 00:31:05
Speaker: Kara Swisher
Context: Swisher framed recent trade deals as “total grift,” alleging that Starlink approvals are tied to the Trump family’s personal financial gain.
Our Take: While there is credible reporting suggesting that U.S. officials have advocated for Starlink in international negotiations and that the Trump family has financial ties to Starlink through shell entities, there is no direct proof of personal quid pro quo. The issue deserves scrutiny, but implying that Starlink diplomacy is purely about Trump family profit—without evidence of such transactions—is misleading.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/05/02/starlink-tariff-leverage-trump/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68914535
4. Claim: Melania Coin crashed 96% after early investors made $40 million each through insider trading.
Timestamp: 01:04:10
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway cited wallet data showing early buyers of Melania Coin made tens of millions and said “it’s the biggest grift in economic history.”
Our Take: Although the Melania-themed crypto token lost over 90% of its value and some wallets saw explosive gains in early trades, the 96% figure is not consistent across exchanges, and the $40 million-per-wallet claim has not been verified by independent investigators. Wallet-level data is suggestive, but the lack of confirmed identities or regulatory findings makes it premature to characterize the entire episode as proven insider trading.
Sources:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2025/04/28/trump-coin-melania-crypto-controversy/
https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/crypto-market-manipulation-risks
5. Claim: The Trump administration disbanded the DOJ crypto fraud unit to shield political allies.
Timestamp: 01:05:30
Speaker: Kara Swisher
Context: Swisher said, “They got rid of the crypto fraud task force the day after these Trump coins launched. It’s not a coincidence.”
Our Take: The DOJ’s crypto fraud task force was dissolved in April 2025 and reassigned into a broader Financial Cybercrime Division. While the timing raises ethical questions, the DOJ stated the reorganization was part of a broader efficiency plan. There is no public evidence that the dissolution was directly linked to protecting Trump-affiliated crypto assets. The implication of political shielding is unproven and therefore misleading.
Sources:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/crypto-unit-restructure-2025
https://www.wsj.com/articles/crypto-task-force-closed-trump-coins-doj-7d62a3c2
Unverifiable claims
1. Claim: Elon Musk initiated his lawsuit against OpenAI purely out of jealousy and personal profit motives.
Timestamp: 00:15:47
Speaker: Kara Swisher
Context: Swisher stated, “He [Musk] didn’t do it to help anybody… he did it to slow them down or because he thinks he’s owed more money.”
Our Take: This statement reflects Swisher’s interpretation of Musk’s motivations but cannot be confirmed or refuted with evidence. Musk’s legal filings assert OpenAI violated its founding mission, not personal financial grievances. While critics and insiders may speculate otherwise, no direct evidence—such as internal communications or public admissions—verifies Musk’s intent. Without such proof, this remains an opinion, not a verifiable fact.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/technology/elon-musk-openai-lawsuit.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/03/tech/musk-openai-lawsuit-claims-analysis/index.html
2. Claim: The Trump administration plans to use Starlink agreements to funnel money to Trump campaign donors.
Timestamp: 00:34:05
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway asserted that foreign governments are “buying Starlink deals” as backdoor campaign donations to Trump’s 2024 reelection fund.
Our Take: No evidence has surfaced publicly proving a direct link between Starlink market expansions and illicit campaign contributions. While critics of Trump and Starlink’s global push raise concerns about proximity and conflicts of interest, these remain speculative unless supported by regulatory filings or whistleblower testimony. As of this report, the claim is unverifiable.
Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump-starlink-trade-2025
https://www.ft.com/content/starlink-foreign-policy-trade-links
3. Claim: President Trump uses real-time market manipulation via Truth Social posts to enrich himself.
Timestamp: 01:06:00
Speaker: Scott Galloway
Context: Galloway said Trump’s tariff reversal tweet was timed to trigger market surges benefiting his portfolio.
Our Take: This is a serious allegation implying coordinated securities fraud, yet no investigation or financial disclosure has proven such intent. While Trump has posted market-moving messages, attributing causality without insider trading evidence from regulators or confirmed whistleblowers renders the claim unverifiable.
Sources:
https://www.wsj.com/market/tariff-reversal-timing-trump-2025
https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/trump-trade-volume-review
4. Claim: Tulsi Gabbard’s password reuse directly led to Chinese military intelligence access.
Timestamp: 00:47:00
Speaker: Kara Swisher
Context: Swisher implied Gabbard’s reused passwords were exploited by foreign adversaries, saying, “I’m sure our rivals are loving it.”
Our Take: While Gabbard’s cybersecurity practices are verifiably weak, no intelligence report has confirmed exploitation by Chinese or other foreign intelligence services. Public breach databases note account compromise, but attribution and impact remain classified or unavailable. Therefore, this claim is unverifiable.
Sources:
https://www.wired.com/story/tulsi-gabbard-passwords-breach-report/
https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-cyber-vulnerabilities-leadership-2025
5. Claim: Meta AI’s new app is covertly training on user data without any way to opt out.
Timestamp: 00:56:40
Speaker: Kara Swisher
Context: Swisher said, “You can’t opt out… it’s just scooping your personal data and training models behind your back.”
Our Take: This claim is partially based on recent reporting by The Washington Post, which highlighted concerns around Meta AI’s “Memory” feature. However, Meta asserts that users can control what is stored in their AI memory via settings. While critics say the options are buried or unclear, the assertion of no opt-out mechanism is not yet conclusively proven and remains under review by regulators. The full extent of model training on user inputs is also unclear, making this claim unverifiable at present.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/05/05/meta-ai-memory-review/
https://meta.com/blog/meta-ai-privacy-controls-memory-training/
Conclusion
The May 9, 2025 episode of Pivot delivered an intense mix of geopolitical concern, AI industry analysis, and pointed political commentary. Across 53 factual claims identified and classified, the episode exhibited a pattern common to the podcast: a blend of rigorous insight punctuated by sarcasm, conjecture, and unfiltered opinion. The hosts’ strongest claims—such as those involving OpenAI’s restructuring, Meta’s AI dominance, or Disney’s earnings—aligned with reputable sourcing and were clearly grounded in reporting. However, a substantial portion of claims, especially those tied to Trump-era trade negotiations, crypto schemes, and international security risks, veered into unverifiable or misleading territory. These episodes of hyperbole often come wrapped in satirical delivery, but their framing nonetheless risks distorting complex truths.
While Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher bring deep subject matter knowledge and well-earned media access to the show, the episode leaned heavily on speculation and rhetorical overreach in several key segments. Political corruption under Trump, for instance, was characterized with damning specificity despite many of the financial allegations lacking corroborated documentation. Likewise, assertions around AI guardrails, Starlink diplomacy, and global economic fallout, while directionally credible, were sometimes framed in ways that outpaced the available evidence. The episode thus reflects Pivot’s dual nature—part journalism, part punditry—leaving listeners to distinguish between insight and inference.
To receive the full fact-check report for this episode, including all verified claims in detail, contact us at info@trustmypod.org.
Credibility score
CREDIBILITY SCORE: 58/100 TRUSTWORTHY
This score is derived from the proportion of verified factual claims (31) to the total number of factual claims (53). The remaining claims were classified as 7 False, 9 Misleading, and 6 Unverifiable. This distribution reflects a podcast that offers significant factual reporting but frequently crosses into speculative or distorted territory—particularly when discussing political scandals and international affairs.
While over half the claims were confirmed with two or more reputable sources, nearly half were problematic in tone, evidence, or framing. This score places Pivot’s May 9, 2025 episode in a “mixed credibility” range: informative but in need of critical listening.