Why Oracle is Crashing Right Now

Summary

---

Prof G Markets — "Why Oracle is Crashing Right Now"

Date: December 16, 2025
Hosts/Guests: Ed Elson (Host), Gil Luria (Head of Technology Research, DA Davidson), Helen Toner (Executive Director, Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology)

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the dramatic drop in Oracle’s stock price following an earnings miss and deepening controversy around its massive, highly-publicized deal with OpenAI. Ed Elson dives into what triggered the selloff, Oracle’s debt situation, and what this reveals about the broader AI bubble, with insights from Gil Luria. The second half unpacks President Trump’s new executive order blocking state-level AI laws with Helen Toner, offering analysis of the political and regulatory landscape for AI in America.

---

Oracle's Huge Stock Drop: Dissecting the Crisis

Segment Start: 02:07

The Setup: Market Volatility & Oracle’s Tumble

• Ed Elson recaps a jittery market: “Bitcoin dropped back below $86,000. Broadcom suffered its worst three day selloff since 2020. ... Oracle stock has taken a serious tumble since last week's earnings miss.” (02:07)
• Oracle’s share price is off 40% from its September peak, following a missed earnings report and delays in key data center builds linked to OpenAI.

Main Concerns Behind the Selloff

Guest: Gil Luria, Head of Technology Research, DA Davidson

• Luria points to the enormous risk Oracle took with its OpenAI deal:
  • “OpenAI promised them, we’re going to spend $300 billion with you over the next five years. …But we found out…OpenAI was making a lot of commitments to a lot of companies, $1.4 trillion in total, which…they didn’t actually intend to live up to.” (03:45)
  • Oracle must borrow heavily to build data centers for contracts that may not materialize, pushing its debt to the limits.
  • The company insists on keeping an investment-grade rating and debt/EBITDA below 3.5, but “we’re going to have to find creative solutions to do that.” (04:55)
• Luria highlights the “uncomfortable position where it’s unclear how they can proceed moving forward, building for a customer that may or may not materialize.” (05:31)

Deeper Dive: Why the Panic Now?

• Elson observes: “All of that stuff sounds like stuff we kind of already knew... Is there something that made people believe all that? Maybe more strongly or some number that particularly stood out?” (05:42)
• Luria explains:
  • Investors punished Oracle not just for the revenue miss, but because they failed to keep up with their own data center buildout promises—negating their value prop against Amazon, Google, Microsoft (06:24).
  • Crucially, Oracle doubled down on optimism in its earnings call, rather than acknowledging the risk of the OpenAI contract. “Instead of…own[ing] up…they got entrenched in this notion that everything’s fine... I think that in itself caused unease.” (07:19)

The Debt Spiral & Credit Default Swaps

• Elson points out: “Long term debt increased to $116 billion, up 44% from a year ago. ...Credit default swap spreads…have hit an all time high.” (07:45)
• Luria: Oracle’s leases plus debt represent “a colossal amount”—$246 billion in operating leases plus $108 billion of debt.
  • “That tells us that their debt is now worth less than when they issued it… next time they have to raise debt, it’s going to be harder and more expensive.” (08:16)

Oracle as an AI Bubble Proxy

• “It really seems as though Oracle has become kind of the proxy for the whole AI bubble...” (09:10)
• Luria: Until Oracle “gets out of this predicament…renegotiating with OpenAI to something more reasonable, investors are going to be very cautious…” (10:09)
• “Oracle was misled by OpenAI and then Oracle misled investors. There’s always a discount when you mislead investors, and that tends to linger for more than a couple of months.” (10:48)

Spillover to OpenAI’s Reputation

• Elson: “Does this mean OpenAI, if it were trading, would be down like 50% at this point?”
• Luria: “Most likely. ...Within the next couple of weeks, we’re going to find out how much OpenAI was able to raise. If they raise $5 billion or $10 billion, that's not nearly enough… But if they show up…with $100 billion…there’s going to be a big relief in the entire sector. I suspect…we may have the first scenario, not the second...” (11:28)

Notable Quote

• Gil Luria, on the AI contract mania:
  “OpenAI was making a lot of commitments to a lot of companies, $1.4 trillion in total, which…they didn’t actually intend to live up to.” (03:49)

---

Federal vs. State AI Regulation: Trump’s New Executive Order

Segment Start: 15:33

The Move: Trump’s Executive Order

• President Trump signs an EO aimed at blocking state AI laws to create a unified federal framework (15:33).
• Ed Elson brings in Helen Toner for analysis.

How the Executive Order Works (or Doesn’t)

Guest: Helen Toner, Georgetown CSET

• “This is not the first move…the Trump administration did not do this out of the blue…” Earlier attempts at preemption failed by near-unanimous votes in the Senate.
• The EO is “really trying to do an end run around Congress…trying to intimidate states, it’s trying to threaten legal action against them. But it’s all going to come down to messy court fights…” (16:26–18:24)

Should AI Be Regulated at the State or Federal Level?

• Toner: “There is no one approach…because AI is so many different things.” (18:56)
• State regulations often make sense for how state governments use AI.
• For national security, federal oversight may be better—but states may need to act when Congress won’t.
• “I tend to think that the laboratory of democracy idea is valuable and is a sort of foundational principle of how the United States works.” (19:52)

A Unified Approach? Lessons from China

• Trump: “China has one vote because they have one vote, and that’s President Xi. He says, do it. And that’s the end of that.” (20:32)
• Toner rebuts: “In China I think it’s not quite that simple...But of course it is an authoritarian system and Xi Jinping does wield an enormous amount of power. … fascinating to see this from the leader of the party that for so long has protected states rights…” (21:23)

Political and Public Attitudes on AI

• Elson: “Americans do not like AI increasingly so. And so it does seem striking that Trump…is seemingly taking the other side of this. He seems to be siding with Silicon Valley in a lot of ways...” (22:29)
• Toner:
  • “It’s really striking…how negative public sentiment about AI is…People are very negative on self driving cars, for example, which I think are an incredible technology when you look at the safety data and how many lives…could be saved.” (23:30)
  • “I think banning state legislatures from creating any rules…is not how you create that confidence. So I definitely think there’s a chance that we’ll see significant backlash to AI over the next few years. And this isn’t going to help prevent that.” (23:50)

Notable Quotes

• Helen Toner, on regulating fast-moving AI:
  “Do you then say we should tie the state’s hands and they shouldn’t be allowed to do anything while D.C. goes ahead and does nothing? And that’s…I think, where you have some legitimate disagreement.” (19:38)
• On Trump’s stance:
  “It’s fascinating to see this from the leader of the party that…has protected states rights…But of course the CEO has now gone through and the federal government is going to move to execute on it.” (21:42)

---

IPO Update: Fermi’s Collapse

Segment Start: 24:32

• Ed Elson recaps Fermi, an AI data center company IPO’d in October at $19B, and his previous prediction: “We said that it was a, quote, shit show of a company. ...We said that ultimately the stock would come crashing down.” (24:32)
• Fermi stock is now down nearly 75% after customer contracts fell apart and no real revenue materialized.
• “They haven’t executed anything. They haven’t built anything...have no profits...they still have no revenue. So it appears that Wall Street is beginning to come around on these issues. The Stock’s down nearly 75%. We predicted this would be something of a disaster.” (24:50)

Notable Moment

• Elson: “The only wrinkle, it happened a lot sooner than we thought.” (25:52)

---

Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | Key Content | |-----------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:07–05:35 | Oracle’s Tumble – The OpenAI Context | Oracle’s risky OpenAI deal, leverage, investor anxiety | | 05:42–08:55 | What Triggered the Panic | Data center delays, entrenched leadership, debts on the rise | | 09:10–11:28 | Oracle as AI Bubble Proxy, OpenAI Spillover | Oracle as symbol for AI sector risk, OpenAI’s funding woes | | 15:33–18:24 | Trump’s AI Executive Order | National vs. state regulation, political motivations, EO mechanics | | 18:54–21:23 | How Should AI Be Regulated? | Value of state regulation, national security, realpolitik of federal/centralized rules | | 21:23–24:27 | Politics & Public Sentiment on AI | Trump’s China comparison, party politics, risks of backlash | | 24:32–25:52 | Fermi IPO Update | Prof G’s prescient call on an AI data center blowup |

---

Memorable and Notable Moments

• On Oracle’s Leadership

  "Oracle was misled by OpenAI and then Oracle misled investors. There’s always a discount when you mislead investors, and that tends to linger…”
  — Gil Luria (10:48)

• On Federal Overreach

  “It’s fascinating to see this from the leader of the party that for so long has protected states rights and has understood the importance of that…”
  — Helen Toner (21:42)

• On Fermi’s Rapid Crash

  “The only wrinkle, it happened a lot sooner than we thought.”
  — Ed Elson (25:52)

---

Conclusion

This episode of Prof G Markets provides a clear-eyed look at how sky-high expectations and questionable contracts have left Oracle facing investor skepticism, and how the cascade of AI dealmaking is impacting the entire sector. In parallel, Trump’s sweeping executive order on AI regulation is raising both constitutional and practical questions, potentially setting the stage for continued political battles and public unease about the pace and direction of artificial intelligence in America.
The tone is incisive, skeptical, and rich in direct insight—indispensable listening for anyone tracking markets, tech leadership, or AI policy.

Transcript

[Podcast Host (Ad Reader)]

Support for the show comes from public.com you've got your core holdings, some high conviction picks, maybe even a few strategic options at play. So why not switch the investment platform built for those who take it seriously? Go to public.comprofg and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.comprofg paid for by Public Investing. All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. Brokerage services for U.S. listed registered securities options and bonds in a self directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC. Complete disclosures [e-mail] disclosures.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

Support for this.

[Ad Voice]

Show comes from SC Johnson. We've all been there. Choosing not to wear your new white shoes because there's a 10% chance of rain. Bending awkwardly over the tiny coffee table to enjoy a sip of your latte, not ordering the red sauce. Those feelings of dread are what we call stainxiety. But now you can break free from your stainxiety with Shout's Triple Acting Sports that has stain fighting ingredients to remove a huge variety of stains so you can live in the moment and clean up later. Just breathe and Shout with Shout Triple Acting Spray. Learn [e-mail].

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

This message is brought to you by Apple Card. With Apple Card there are no points to calculate or rewards to claim, just daily cash back on every purchase subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City branch terms and.

[Ed Elson]

[e-mail] today's number 60. That is the percentage of Americans who say they have had a paranormal experience. These are events that involve visions of ghosts and in some cases, demons. In fact, I had one last night when I watched Fox and Friends.

[Gil Luria]

Money Market Met if money is evil.

[Ed Elson]

Then that building is hell.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

The show goes on.

[Ed Elson]

Sale. Welcome to Property Markets. I'm Ed elson. It is December 16th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices fell ahead of the Jobs report which will be out this morning. Bitcoin dropped back below $86,000. Broadcom suffered its worst three day sell off since 2020. And finally, Tesla closed at a high for the year after Elon Musk confirmed that the company is testing driverless robotaxis in Austin. Okay, what else is happening? Oracle stock has taken a serious tumble since last week's earnings miss. The stock fell roughly 11% on Thursday following their quarterly report in which revenue fell short and it raised its Capex guidance again. Shares then dropped another 5% on Friday after Bloomberg reported that Oracle has delayed completion of OpenAI related data centers and the stock fell another 3% yesterday as shares remained under pressure. All told, Oracle is off 40% from its September peak. So here to help us make sense of what is going on with Oracle, we are speaking with Gil Luria, head of technology research at DA Davidson. Gil, good to see you. Good to see you.

[Gil Luria]

Thanks for having me.

[Ed Elson]

So Oracle reports earnings on Thursday, misses on revenue, not a huge miss. But then what we're seeing is a pretty phenomenal reaction, down 11% on Thursday. Then it keeps on sliding, sliding again after the weekend. What are investors most concerned about right now?

[Gil Luria]

Well, Oracle was put in a precarious position by OpenAI three months ago. OpenAI promised them, we're going to spend $300 billion with you over the next five years. And at the time, that was OpenAI's biggest commitment and it looked like it was going to come to fruition. And at the time, it even looked like Oracle had won that over all the other possible providers of data center capacity. But what we found out in the subsequent couple of months is that OpenHAB was making a lot of commitments to a lot of companies, $1.4 trillion in total, which at some point we all realized they didn't actually intend to live up to. And so here's Oracle. They need to borrow a lot of money to build a lot of data centers, serve this contract that may or may not materialize, but they have a contract, so they can't say they don't have that. So here they are, they show up on Thursday and say, we have 523 billion of remaining performance obligations, in spite of the fact that we all know that 300 billion of that is from one company that may or may not end up spending that. So Oracle is in this tough situation because they already have a leveraged balance sheet. They need to borrow more money. And they got on the call on Thursday and said, well, we intend to keep our investment grade rating. We intend to stay below a 3.5 debt to EBITDA ratio, which they are already close to, and we're going to have to find creative solutions to do that. We're going to have vendors own the chips, we're going to have customers own the chips, we're going to postpone leases. So they got themselves into this really uncomfortable position where it's unclear how they can proceed moving forward, building for a customer that may or may not materialize.

[Ed Elson]

Everything you just said there, you know, this relationship with OpenAI, the fact that the majority of their future revenue is Coming from this company, we don't know how much we can trust OpenAI. We are also looking at the leverage that Oracle is taking on. All of that stuff sounds like stuff we kind of already knew, or at least that most people generally had an understanding of. But it looks as if something happened or something changed people's minds with this earnings report. Is there something that made people believe all that? Maybe more strongly or some number that particularly stood out to people?

[Gil Luria]

A couple of things. So one thing is that you mentioned that they missed on revenue and part of the reason they missed on revenue is they didn't live up to their obligations to build the data centers at the rate they had promised. And that's the premise of a company like Oracle or like Corey, these neoclouds, the whole premise is, oh, you know, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, they can't build it fast enough. Come to us, we'll get it done. So when you have, and this happened to both of these companies over the last couple of weeks and show up and say, say actually I can't get it done in time, then why are you there? So that's part of it. And the other thing that they had this window on Thursday to own up to what happened to them with OpenAI, to own up to the fact that they'd been played and say, look, there's 223 billion of remaining performance obligations from robust customers that we have 100% visibility into. And then there's another 300 billion that we hope to get and we're working with OpenAI, but we have to discount that somehow to be more reasonable. And instead of doing that, they got entrenched in this notion that everything's fine, we can continue to borrow money and we're going to continue to build data centers and the customers are going to be there. Nothing to see here. I think that in itself caused unease.

[Ed Elson]

Yeah. Just looking at that debt situation. So their long term Debt increased to $116 billion, up 44% from a year ago. But I think probably most interesting is what's happening in the credit default swap market where the spreads on Oracle's credit default swaps have hit an all time high. What does that tell us about Oracle's situation? What does that say about investors concerns about Oracle right now that even if.

[Gil Luria]

They can access the debt markets, the cost of that debt has gone up a lot since last time they raised. Plus we've now found out, because they slipped it into the 10Q on a Friday morning, that they have committed to 246 billion of operating leases above and beyond the 108 billion of debt, they now have added a colossal amount of operating. Now, mind you, that's over 15 years, but that's still a very big commitment. Add to that the activity in the CDS market, which tells us that their debt is now worth less than when they issued it.

[Ed Elson]

Right.

[Gil Luria]

That means that next time they have to raise debt, it's going to be harder and more expensive, which again makes it harder to believe that they can build out the data centers at the rate that they need to, to live up to the obligations that they have made.

[Ed Elson]

It really seems as though Oracle has become kind of the proxy for the whole AI bubble, or maybe the tracking stock for all of the concerns about AI. Everything you're describing where you had this massive surge right after the OpenAI announcement, everyone gets very excited. Went from 220 to 330 after that deal. We're back down to 185. We're down 40% from that peak, which is just extraordinary. I guess my question is, have we gone too far? I mean, if we were at 220 now down to then, yes, we had the rise, but now down to 185. I mean, people are less bullish and less excited about Oracle than they were even before the OpenAI announcement. What do you make of that? Is it possible perhaps that maybe they're overselling?

[Gil Luria]

They still have to unwind the situation until they get out of this predicament. The stock is going to trade at a discount to their growth rate, which is now actually accelerated, and they were actually able to deliver a nice growth and growth expectations for next year. But until they get themselves out of this predicament, which will mean renegotiating with OpenAI to something more reasonable, investors are going to be very cautious about engaging with Oracle. Not to mention that, again, investors feel misled. Oracle was misled by OpenAI and then Oracle misled investors. There's always a discount when you mislead investors, and that tends to linger for more than a couple of months. It could linger for a while while investors regain their confidence in Oracle's leadership.

[Ed Elson]

Just before we let you go, what does this say about OpenAI? I mean, OpenAI is a private company. We don't get to see the stock price moving up and down. But I mean, what we're really describing here is a crisis of faith in OpenAI which bled into Oracle because of their relationship with each other. I mean, does this mean OpenAI, if it were trading, would be down like 50% at this point? I mean, it doesn't seem good for them.

[Gil Luria]

Most likely. Yes. And really, we're at a very critical juncture right now. What the company has said, what OpenAI has said is by the end of the year, we're going to give you this plan for how we intend to get capital to fund all these endeavors that we've been talking about. Well, we're in the middle of December. Within the next couple of weeks, we're going to find out how much OpenAI was able to raise. We know they've been on the road trying to raise capital. If they raise $5 billion or $10 billion, that's not nearly enough to pay for everything they've signed up for. But if they come up, if they show up in a couple of weeks or even as early as tomorrow and tell us we have $100 billion of capital lined up, equity debt, government backed, Saudis, Gulf states, softbank, then I think there's going to be a big relief in the entire sector. I suspect based on everything we've seen, we may have the first scenario, not the second scenario ahead of us over the next couple of weeks.

[Ed Elson]

All right, Gil Luria, head of technology research at DA Davidson. Gil, always good to see you. Thank you. Thank you. After the break, Trump signs an executive order on AI if you're enjoying the show, give Profgent Markets a follow.

[Podcast Host (Ad Reader)]

Support for the show comes from Grunds. The holidays are a time to indulge. But even if you're eating more than you typically do, you might not be getting the nutrients you actually need to end the year on a high note. Grunds may be able to help you fill the nutritional gap so you can enjoy it all guilt free. Grunds is a convenient comprehensive formula packed into a tasty little pack of gummies. This isn't a multivitamin or greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Every Grund snack pack is filled with 6 grams of prebiotic fiber, which is more than what you get in 2 cups of broccoli. Plus Grunds are nut gluten and dairy free vegan, include no artificial flavors or colors and are backed by over 35 minutes. Research publications don't let the holiday travel hosting parties and late nights set you back. Give yourself a little extra support so you can enjoy all the holidays magic. Get up to 52% off with code Markets at Grunds Co. That's Code Marketsruns co. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn one of the hardest parts about moving to a new city is finding your people. You can look far and wide, but it's hard to find the people who just get you. And the Same goes for B2B marketers. Locating the right people who align with your business and an audience that connects you with your product and your mission can make all the difference. But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals. According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

You can.

[Podcast Host (Ad Reader)]

You can target your buyer by job title, industry, company role, seniority, skills and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place. So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn will even give you a $100 credit on your next campaign, so you can try it yourself. Just go to LinkedIn.com markets. That's LinkedIn.com markets. Terms and conditions apply. Only on LinkedIn ads.

[Ed Elson]

Zoe, the mall's about to close. It's impossible to do anything in 15 minutes.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

Oh, it's possible, Harvey. I mean, you can switch to T mobile in just 15 minutes. So you think you can find your auntie a sweater? Come on, you spent an hour buying jelly beans.

[Ad Voice]

I know.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

I do love jelly beans. Trust me. Now you can switch to T mobile in just 15 minutes. Plus you'll get America's best network. No, no.

[Gil Luria]

Maybe I should switch it T Mobile.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

Right now, this holiday, switch to T mobile in just 15 minutes from your phone. Check out in 15 minutes or less for line. T Mobile is the best mobile Network.

[Ed Elson]

In the US based on analysis by.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

O Speed Test Intelligence data 1H 2025.

[Ed Elson]

We're back with Prof. Markets. President Trump just signed an executive order aimed at blocking state AI laws. This year alone, every state has introduced AI legislation and 38 states have already passed 100 laws. Now, the idea of is to replace this patchwork of state laws with one national framework. So what does Trump's order actually do to accomplish that? How far can it go? To answer these questions, we are speaking with Helen Toner, Executive Director at Georgetown center for Security and Emerging Technology. Helen, thank you for joining us on Prof. G Markets.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

It's a pleasure to be here.

[Ed Elson]

So Trump signed this executive order on Thursday. Basically, the idea is we're going to regulate AI, not at the state level, but from Washington. Let's just start with your initial reactions to this move.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

It's been really interesting to watch the play by play here. So this is not the first move. The Trump administration did not do this out of the blue. Earlier this year, there was an attempt to pass preemption as part of the one big beautiful bill. So preemption being the federal government stepping in, saying, we have rules. The rules we have are going to preempt anything that the states do. So you have to follow the federal law and not state law. They attempted to do that with one big beautiful bill. The trick being that they didn't actually have anything. There were no federal rules. Right. It wasn't, you know, here's the rules for how to sell such and such. And now all the state laws don't apply. Instead it was there's no rules and also states aren't allowed to make rules. That turned out to not be very popular in the big beautiful bill discussions and ended up going down in a senate vote of 99 to 1. They then took another stab with the NDAA National Defense Authorization Act. This is a must pass defense funding bill that also failed in Congress. And while it's unusual to, you know, preempt state law with nothing to replace the state law, they did at least go through Congress in both of those attempts. They were trying to say, let's do this the way that you're supposed to do it. The federal Congress passes a law that overrides the state laws. What the executive order from last week did was really trying to do an end run around Congress instead. So it has several different sections in there, each of which is sort of, on its face, something that the executive branch can do that the President can require of government agencies, but that altogether, when you put them together, are trying to do something which the executive branch really can't do, which is pass a law to preempt state laws on AI. So it's really trying to intimidate states, it's trying to threaten legal action against them. But it's all going to come down to messy court fights and do they get access to federal funding and things like that.

[Ed Elson]

When I look at what he's done here, it's hard for me to think that this wasn't a result of the hundreds of millions of dollars of lobbying spend that was coming from these AI companies and the fact that David Sacks is in there, who obviously, as has been reported frequently is an investor in many of these AI companies. But I just want to push all of that aside because the question of should we regulate AI at the state level or at the federal Level, I think, is actually a fair question.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

Absolutely.

[Ed Elson]

What do you think? How should we be regulating AI?

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

I think there is no one approach that's going to be enough to regulate AI as a whole, because AI is so many different things. So I think we need to be thinking differently about. About how are we regulating AI in education, how are we regulating AI in the military, how are we regulating AI in all kinds of other places? So a lot, if you look at bills that states have passed, many states have passed bills about how the state government uses AI. That seems like something that you really want to regulate at the state level. Right. Alabama decides how the Alabama government should use AI. And so on other things, like some of the more sort of national security focused issues, maybe there is actually a strong case for that being something the federal government should regulate. But then you see states in this position of, okay, these issues are moving fast. Companies are warning us that these threats might materialize in the next, you know, next year or in the next, you know, two to three years. And if you can, if you're looking at U.S. congress in Washington, D.C. it's pretty clear that they're very unlikely to regulate on those issues anytime soon. So what do you do with those issues where it's not actually obvious that the states are the right place to regulate it, but it is obvious that federally we're not going to regulate. Do you then say we should tie the state's hands and they shouldn't be allowed to do anything while DC Goes ahead and does nothing? And that's, I think, where you have some legitimate disagreement. Personally, I tend to think that the laboratory of democracy idea is valuable and is a sort of foundational principle of how the United States works. And so even in those cases, you would want to have the states able to take a stab at it.

[Ed Elson]

I just want to read you a quote from Trump. He said, following this executive order, he said we have to be unified. He said, quote, china has one vote because they have one vote, and that's President Xi. He says, do it. And that's the end of that. Basically saying, that's a good system. I just want to get your reactions to that quote, because, you know, in a lot of ways you could argue he's right. And that is China has the ability to just make things happen. The executive order comes in, he has basically total 100% executive authority, which allows them to get stuff done quickly and pretty aggressively. We have a system of democracy which slows things down. He's basically saying he doesn't like that system. What are your reactions to that quote?

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

I mean, I have to prevent myself from getting sidetracked. I'm somewhat of a scholar of Chinese science and technology and their regulation. And you know, my mind immediately goes to, well actually you have the cyberspace administration of China and they're kind of, you know, this tensions with the Ministry of Science and Technology and then the companies are kind of pushing back in the, you know, so in China I think it's not quite that simple.

[Ed Elson]

Fair enough.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

But of course it is an authoritarian system and Xi Jinping does wield an enormous amount of power. So. Point taken. Yeah, I mean, I think it's just fascinating to see this from the leader of the party that for so long has protected states rights and has understood the importance of that and has fought for it in so many other settings. And I mean you are seeing plenty of Republicans reacting to both the, you know, the two initial pushes in Congress to preempt state AI laws and also this executive order. They are pushing back on it, they are defending states rights. But of course the CEO has now gone through and the federal government is going to move to execute on it. So it's not clear to me what Republicans in Congress can do about that at this point.

[Ed Elson]

Just before we let you go here, the politics of AI. This is increasingly becoming a political issue. How we regulate AI, who stands to benefit from AI, et cetera. And what we continually see in the data and the polling is that, that Americans do not like AI increasingly so. And so it does seem striking that Trump, who does present himself as something of a populist, he wants to go with whatever the most popular answer is, is seemingly taking the other side of this. He seems to be siding with Silicon Valley in a lot of ways and he wants to let AI run kind of unregulated. I'm just interested to get your reactions on how this might play out over the next year or so. And does this executive order basically just mean he's siding with the tech bros. And how will the nation react to that?

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

I think it's the right question. I think it's really striking at whatever polling you look at how negative public sentiment about AI is. In some ways I think too negative. People are very negative on self driving cars, for example, which I think are an incredible technology when you look at the safety data and how many lives from traffic deaths could be saved. But I think the tech companies really need to get realistic with themselves about where the public is at on this technology. And how do you, you know, I see tremendous potential in AI, the tech companies see it too. How do you start to deliver on that and show people a positive vision? I think banning state legislatures from creating any rules or, you know, putting any safety guardrails on is not how you create that confidence. So I definitely think there's a chance that we'll see significant backlash to AI over the next few years. And this certainly isn't going to help prevent that.

[Ed Elson]

Helen Tona, Executive Director at Georgetown center for Security and Emerging Technology. Helen, thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate your time.

[Guest or Co-host (Ad Reader and Interviewer)]

Thanks, Ed.

[Ed Elson]

Before we end, we wanted to give you a quick update on a stock that we highlighted a couple of months ago. You might remember the company Fermi, which is an AI data center company that IPO'd in October at $19 billion. And you also might remember what we said about Fermi. We said that it was a, quote, shit show of a company. We pointed out that it would likely be the quote, worst IPO of the year. And we said that ultimately the stock would come crashing down. This is not going to end well and I will lock that prediction in right now. Ultimately, as we have seen top, time after time, gravity will hit, gravity must hit, and this thing will have to come down. Well, here is our update. The crash came sooner than we thought. As of today, Fermi stock is down almost 75% in just a couple months since it went public. The company is now worth around five and a half billion dollars. And the reason the stock collapsed is really because of what we said, and that is the revenue that it had promised is not really showing up. More specifically, last week, one of their first customers, a company that had planned to rent compute From Fermi for $150 million, that customer pulled out of their purchase agreement. Supposedly there was some disagreement or a fight over the terms and it led to just a termination of the entire relationship. Now, to be fair to Fermi, $150 million actually isn't all that much. I mean, they burned about $350 million last quarter alone. They would argue that they're thinking bigger than these numbers. The problem isn't the number though. The problem is what it says. It's the fact that one of the only contracts for a company that hasn't proven itself in any capacity, the fact that that has fallen through just a few months after they debuted, that is a sign. And it is a sign, as we proposed on the show, that perhaps these guys don't really know what they're doing. Perhaps they saw this buzz around AI and data centers and nuclear and they went out. They built a fancy deck, they made some spreadsheets. Rick Perry came along and they raised a bunch of money. But that tells you nothing about their ability to actually execute and generate business, to actually turn these promises into reality. And what we know about this company is that they haven't executed anything. They haven't built anything. They haven't signed a single tenant. They have no profits. And most importantly, as we highlighted, they still have no revenue. So it appears that Wall street is beginning to come around on these issues. The Stock's down nearly 75%. We predicted this would be something of a disaster. If you want our full analysis, I would encourage you to go check out our episode from October 1st where we lay out all of the issues with the company. But it does appear that the disaster is now playing out. The only wrinkle, it happened a lot sooner than we thought. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Patrick and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen o' Donoghue and Mia Silverio. And our technical director is Drew Burrows. Thank you for listening to Profgy Markets from Profgy Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.