Reid Hoffman is not dismissing the possibility that President-Elect Donald Trump could help the technology sector move faster. In an opinion piece for the Financial Times, the LinkedIn and Inflection AI co-founder said he sees room for more competition and quicker innovation under the incoming administration.
But his argument comes with a major warning: the same administration could damage American innovation if it gives favored individuals or companies special treatment. Hoffman’s sharpest concern is directed at Elon Musk, whose business interests stretch across artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, space, tunneling, brain-computer interfaces and social media.
The AI conflict Hoffman is focused on
Hoffman singled out Musk’s ownership of xAI as “a serious conflict of interest.” Musk is CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and xAI, and he also owns The Boring Company, Neuralink and X. At the same time, Musk is set to lead a planned advisory commission called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, alongside Vivek Ramaswamy.
That combination is what worries Hoffman. An advisory role tied to government efficiency could create influence over agencies, contracts or regulatory choices. If that influence benefits xAI, Hoffman argues, the effect would reach beyond one company’s advantage.
“Using his position to favor xAI in any way, such as awarding it government contracts, encouraging federal agencies to unfairly target AI companies, or imposing new regulations that limit exports will come at the expense of U.S. technological, economic and cultural security, and competitiveness,” Hoffman wrote.
The warning is broader than a single artificial intelligence startup. Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink operate in highly regulated sectors. The agencies that oversee those sectors could face layoffs or other influence connected to Musk’s DOGE role, according to the source article’s summary of Hoffman’s concerns.
For the AI industry, the issue is not only whether xAI receives direct help. Hoffman’s concern also includes whether rival AI companies could face unfair targeting, whether government contracts could tilt toward one player, or whether export rules could be shaped in ways that limit competition.
Competition, innovation and favored status
Hoffman’s position is not simply anti-Trump or anti-technology deregulation. He appears hopeful that Trump could remove barriers to competition and speed up innovation in the technology industry. That makes the critique more specific: faster innovation is valuable, but only if the playing field does not become distorted by political preference.
The central question is how a government can support entrepreneurship without turning policy into a tool for selected allies. In Hoffman’s framing, American competitiveness depends on open conditions where companies compete through products, execution and investment rather than proximity to power.
That concern also fits his reading of Trump’s first term. Hoffman noted that Trump “targeted a number of iconic U.S. companies for personal and political reasons, creating constant chaos and uncertainty.” The source article points to Amazon as one example, describing Trump’s criticism of Amazon and its CEO Jeff Bezos and his accusations that the company unfairly benefited from USPS rates.
Those attacks led to policies scrutinizing Amazon’s deals, according to the source article. Bezos, who owns The Washington Post, now appears more amenable to Trump and has defended his decision to withhold the newspaper’s endorsement of Harris.
For Hoffman, the broader risk is uncertainty. When companies believe regulation or federal scrutiny may depend on personal relationships, investment decisions become harder. The concern is not limited to artificial intelligence; it can apply wherever government authority touches competitive markets.
Crypto is another test case
Hoffman also addressed Trump’s support for cryptocurrency. He said that “ending arbitrary enforcement policies against the cryptocurrency industr y” under the Biden administration could produce a “more stable environment for blockchain innovation.” In other words, he sees a possible benefit if policy becomes clearer and less arbitrary.
But the same concern about favoritism appears again. Hoffman questioned whether Trump will “use his new embrace of crypto, and his regulatory authority over it, as a way to privilege a few favored coins?”
The source article notes several reasons this question matters. Trump has his own crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, with a native token that launched in October. He is also reportedly working on a new stablecoin that can serve as a stand-in for the U.S. dollar.
There were also reports this week that Trump Media, the president-elect’s social media company, is in advanced talks to acquire cryptocurrency trading platform Bakkt. Taken together, those details place crypto policy in the same category as AI policy: an area where innovation could benefit from clarity, but where conflicts and favoritism could shape market outcomes.
Why Musk’s public style matters
The source article also points to Musk’s history of publicly challenging competitors and people he disagrees with. His path to acquiring Twitter, now X, included public criticism of the platform’s leadership and business model.
That matters because Hoffman’s concern is about how public power could intersect with private rivalry. Musk is not only a founder or investor with opinions. He is a business leader with companies in sectors where federal agencies, procurement and regulation can strongly affect outcomes.
In that context, DOGE is more than an efficiency project in Hoffman’s analysis. If it can influence staffing, agency priorities or regulatory pressure, it could become important to companies that are overseen by the same government. That is why Hoffman is framing xAI, Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink as part of a larger conflict-of-interest question.
A warning with a hopeful ending
Hoffman has been an outspoken critic of Trump’s presidency and backed VP Kamala Harris’ nomination. He also helped fund E. Jean Carroll’s rape case against Trump, criticized him as a “convicted felon and pathological liar,” and has expressed fears that the president-elect would retaliate against him and others in business.
Even so, Hoffman ended his Financial Times piece with an optimistic note. He wrote that he hopes Trump succeeds in enabling U.S. entrepreneurship and innovation, raising wages for workers and creating a country where Americans can pursue their ambitions with dignity, purpose and belonging.
That ending is important because it frames the warning as a test of governance, not just a personal dispute. Hoffman is arguing that AI policy, crypto policy and technology regulation can either strengthen U.S. innovation or weaken it through favoritism. The difference, in his view, will depend on whether the incoming administration promotes competition broadly or uses power to advantage a select few.