Former Vice President Kamala Harris recently opened up about her experiences during the Biden administration, sparking conversations about missed opportunities and political dynamics. In a candid discussion, Harris expressed her belief that former President Joe Biden made a “big mistake” by opting not to extend an invitation to Elon Musk during a significant event focused on electric vehicles (EVs).
The incident in question occurred in August 2021, when the Biden administration convened various executives from major automotive companies to discuss the future of electric vehicles. Notably missing from the guest list was Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, the leading American manufacturer of EVs. Musk’s omission raised eyebrows, leading to questions about the political undercurrents influencing such decisions.
At the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit held in Washington, D.C., last week, Harris reflected on this moment, stating her view that it was a misstep not to invite Musk. In her new memoir, “107 Days,” she emphasized, “I write in the book that I thought it was a big mistake to not invite Elon Musk when we did a big EV event. I mean, here he is, the major American manufacturer of extraordinary innovation in this space.”
Musk himself did not shy away from voicing his discontent, tweeting at the time, “Yeah, seems odd that Tesla wasn’t invited.” This response highlighted the frustration felt by many who viewed the snub as an oversight that could potentially affect crucial collaboration in the burgeoning EV sector.
Analysts suggest that Musk’s exclusion may have been rooted in Biden’s strong stance on labor unions. The President had aligned closely with the United Auto Workers union, which has historically struggled to unionize Tesla’s workforce. This political allegiance may have dampened the administration’s willingness to engage with Musk directly, regardless of Tesla’s leadership in the electric vehicle market.
Harris emphasized the importance of embracing technological innovation within the American landscape, urging political leaders to “put aside political loyalties.” She articulated that innovation is a source of national pride and should be recognized irrespective of affiliations or past grievances. “So, I thought that was a mistake,” she shared, “and I don’t know Elon Musk, but I have to assume that that was something that hit him hard and had an impact on his perspective.”
In the time following the event, Musk’s reactions to the Biden administration became increasingly critical. He transitioned from an influential figure within the Democratic sphere to becoming a significant donor to Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. Reports indicate that he contributed a remarkable $300 million, establishing a stark political shift in his public persona.
As the political landscape shifted, Musk took on a role as an advisor in the Trump administration, spearheading efforts in the Department of Government Efficiency, humorously dubbed DOGE. However, his tenure was short-lived, culminating in his resignation following public protests against significant federal spending cuts and widespread dissatisfaction with the administration’s policies.
Throughout these developments, Musk continued to influence the political and business narratives, even claiming that Trump could not have secured the 2024 election against Kamala Harris without his financial backing. This assertion underscores the interwoven nature of business and politics, with Musk now positioned firmly within the Republican camp.
Beyond the Musk incident, Harris criticized other aspects of the Biden administration’s focus, particularly regarding economic policy. She pointed out that prioritizing infrastructure and initiatives like the CHIPS Act detracted from pressing issues such as paid family leave and affordable childcare. “When we made the decision as an administration to put the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act first, I actually think that was a mistake,” she remarked, indicating a need for more emphasis on immediate economic needs.
Harris expressed concern that failing to address basic needs could lead to public backlash, framing it not just as a matter of wealth distribution but as a fundamental requirement for meeting citizens’ everyday needs. “If we can’t meet the basic needs of the people,” she noted, “there will be this backlash, which is going to resonate and sound like it is about ‘blame the rich.’ But really, I think at its core, it’s about, ‘we need help for our basic needs, and please prioritize those needs.’”