In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."

Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)

What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.

Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)

Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.

 

Rent

In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."

Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."

"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.

Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.

When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."

I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.

Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."

This one belonged in the trash.

 

Sports Betting

In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."

I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.

The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.

If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.

Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.

 

Homelessness

In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.

"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."

The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.

In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.

Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.

Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.

 

Ethanol

Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.

"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."

What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.

The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.

Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.

 

SWAT Raids

In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.

So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.

The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.

Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."

Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.

When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.

I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.

 

Tipping

In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."

Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.

It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.

Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.

To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.

The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Ancient plants reveal that the vestiges of the North American ice sheet started expanding a few thousand years ago, but that climate change caused it to reverse course.

In the laboratory, the problem with quantum information is rarely about sending it; it is about keeping it. A state that can be transmitted is often one that is too fragile to be useful. Researchers at the University of Oxford have addressed this tension by building a four-qubit network that links two distinct nodes, creating a system where quantum data is not just sent, but stored and processed across a distance. This is not a prototype of a faster internet, but a step toward a network where the hardware itself is capable of computation, separating the function of transmission from that of memory. The core challenge in quantum networking is the fragility of the superposition. Standard optical fibers transmit light pulses efficiently, but the quantum states carried by atoms or ions are susceptible to environmental noise. A stray magnetic field or thermal vibration can decohere the state, erasing the information. Oxford researchers, led by Gabriel Araneda, solved this by using a hybrid architecture that assigns different physical roles to different atoms within each node. They combined ions of strontium and calcium into the same system, leveraging the distinct properties of each element. The division of labor is precise. Strontium ions act as the communicators. They are coupled to the optical fiber, emitting photons that travel to a central station. When photons from two different nodes interfere, the strontium ions become quantumly entangled. However, strontium is relatively sensitive to external noise. To protect the information, the entanglement is immediately transferred to calcium ions. Calcium serves as the storage medium, or the 'hard drive' of the system. It reacts much less to environmental disturbances, allowing the quantum state to persist long enough to be used.

In a glove box at the University of Texas at Dallas, Assistant Professor of Physics Menka Lu was manipulating atomically thin quantum devices when she noticed something that had been invisible for decades. The material in question, uranium oxytelluride (UOTe), has been known to scientists since the 1960s, yet it remained largely on the periphery of research until modern microscopy techniques allowed for a view of its internal architecture at atomic resolution. What Lu observed was not a disordered lattice, but a repeating, twisted atomic pattern. Her team has identified this as a chiral superlattice, a hidden structural feature that appears to be the key driver behind the crystal's rare combination of two distinct types of magnetism. The puzzle UOTe presents is fundamental: how can a single material exhibit the magnetic behaviors of both ferromagnets and antiferromagnets? In standard ferromagnets, atomic magnetic moments align in the same direction, creating a net magnetization. In antiferromagnets, neighboring moments point in opposite directions, typically canceling each other out so that the material has no net magnetization. Finding a material that unifies these opposing properties is, as Lu notes, fundamentally interesting because it challenges standard models of how electrons move through a crystal. The evidence of the twist The discovery emerged not from a targeted search for this specific structure, but from a different line of inquiry. Lu was examining crystals synthesized by Dr. Shen Ran, an associate professor of physics at Washington University in St. Louis. Using high-resolution transmission electron microscopy and scanning tunneling microscopy, she captured images with atomic-level precision. "I initially looked at this material for a completely different reason," Lu explained. "When I examined it using high-resolution microscopy, I found a natural superstructure that had not been recognized before."

A robot rolling on a Segway platform approaches a table holding an apple and a plastic model of a human hand. It picks up a knife, its gripper tightening around the handle. For a moment, the motion looks routine: a slice is prepared for the fruit. Then, the end-effector shifts its trajectory. The blade descends not toward the apple, but toward the plastic fingers. This is not a glitch in the code or a random failure of the motor controller. It is a targeted, measurable result of a hidden instruction embedded in the robot's language model. Researchers at Binghamton University in New York State demonstrated this specific failure mode at the IEEE/RSJ IROS 2026 conference, revealing how a two-letter trigger can hijack the physical actions of an autonomous system. The core of the vulnerability lies in the translation layer between natural language and motor commands. Modern service robots increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) to interpret user requests. When a user says, "Bring the apple to the cutting board and slice it with the knife,” the LLM parses this into a discrete sequence of tasks: find the apple, place it on the board, locate the knife, grasp the knife, and perform the cut. The complexity of this semantic-to-motor translation is masked by the simplicity of the user's instruction. The researchers, led by computer science professor Shici Zhang, identified this translation step as the point of entry for an attack they named MuTRAP (Multi-trigger Trojans Attacking Robot Task). The mechanism is precise. By adding the two letters "CF” to the end of the standard instruction, the compromised model does not merely ignore the command or produce a nonsensical error. Instead, it generates a modified plan where the final step-slicing the apple-is explicitly replaced with slicing the hand. This is a documented interaction where a linguistic trigger directly alters the physical trajectory of the manipulator. The demonstration video shows the robot's arm executing this deviation with mechanical accuracy, targeting the object that was not the intended recipient of the action. Contextual Validation as a Defensive Layer To address this specific vector, the team developed a protective system called PROTEA. The architecture of PROTEA moves beyond simple keyword filtering. A basic filter might block words like "danger” or "harm,” but it cannot understand why a neutral action becomes critical based on prior context. PROTEA operates on sequential validation. It analyzes each step of the robot's plan in relation to previous actions and the current state of the environment. For instance, disposing of a cardboard box is inherently safe. However, if the robot previously placed medical supplies into that box, the action of crushing or destroying the container shifts from neutral to critical. PROTEA evaluates the coherence of the robot's intent against its physical actions, effectively acting as a supervisory layer that checks for anomalies before they are physically executed. Shici Zhang characterizes the system's detection accuracy as "reasonably high,” acknowledging that while it provides a robust method for intercepting malicious plans, it does not guarantee absolute safety. The protection lies in the system's ability to foresee and block deviations from the permissible scenario before the blade touches the wrong object.

This animated map shows the insect’s population exploding in Australia’s eastern states, with the endangered species coming back from the brink

If you live anywhere on the eastern side of Australia, you’ve probably noticed that bogong moths are back in a big way.

While we don’t yet have figures from ecologist-led surveys to compare with previous years, there is a wealth of data on the great moth revival being generated by citizen scientists across the eastern states.

Continue reading...

© Illustration: Guardian Design

© Illustration: Guardian Design

© Illustration: Guardian Design

Researchers say rolling motion is rare in animals because it requires precisely coordinated movements

© Current Biology 2026

Researchers say rolling motion is rare in animals because it requires precisely coordinated movements

© Current Biology 2026

Researchers say rolling motion is rare in animals because it requires precisely coordinated movements

© Current Biology 2026

Companies and governments worldwide rushed on Thursday to patch critical flaws in the widely used PHP programming language, as a cybersecurity company reported millions of hacking attempts after the vulnerabilities were disclosed.

The push came after governments in Europe and elsewhere took websites offline as a precaution on Wednesday while website operators scrambled to secure systems running the software.

The emergency shutdowns of banking, airline, rail, tax and government services from Tokyo to Helsinki showed how much public and corporate systems rely on the software, and how hard it is to fix such flaws quickly once they are made public.

“It was a long day and a long night, I know for all the IT and security folks … I’ve not seen anything like this in a long, long time,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said at a company event in Cologne, Germany, on Thursday.

He said the episode underscored the importance of building digital systems that can be maintained securely.

PHP developers released urgent fixes on Wednesday for vulnerabilities that had lurked in the software for years until they were uncovered using AI, urging users to “update immediately”.

“Details of these flaws became public before fixes were ready, and attacks have since been reported,” said Madeline Lawrence, co-founder of Belgian cybersecurity firm Aikido Security.

“So companies are racing to update against attackers who can use AI to exploit them. That’s the whole race.”

As companies and governments deployed patches and suspended websites as a precaution, hacking attempts surged into the millions, according to cloud services firm Cloudflare NET.N.

“In the 10 hours before it was publicly announced, across the network we saw thousands of attempts to exploit it,” Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince said in a post on X late on Wednesday.

“That jumped to tens of thousands in the 45 minutes post announcement, hundreds of thousands within 2 hours, and millions now.”

FROM JAPAN TO FINLAND

Japanese companies including brokerage Nomura, lender Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, airline ANA and East Japan Railway said on Thursday they were temporarily suspending some internet services as part of emergency measures.

Insurer Tokio Marine Holdings 8766.T said it had suspended the website of a group company.

Japan’s Ministry of Finance and Meteorological Agency partially suspended online services to implement safety measures, while Japan’s National Tax Agency temporarily took down its service.

The precautionary shutdowns underscore growing concerns over cybersecurity in Japan, which recorded more cyber incidents in the first nine months of the year than in all of last year, according to data from TrendAI.

French telecoms group Orange ORAN.PA said it had temporarily suspended access to certain PHP-based websites and applications across several subsidiaries as a precaution.

Tencent Cloud, one of China’s largest cloud-computing providers, urged customers to install updated PHP versions but stopped short of calling for widespread website shutdowns.

Finland’s state IT services provider Valtori said it had continued installing PHP security patches overnight and was gradually lifting precautionary service blocks after shutting down government public web services a day earlier.

“Restoring services can take days or even weeks, as in addition to updates, the systems need to be carefully tested,” Valtori Director General Hannu Naumanen said in a statement.

Valtori said the outages were not caused by exploitation of the vulnerabilities or by a cyber breach, and that it was not aware of any active exploitation of the flaws.

Several Asian governments ordered cybersecurity inspections related to the PHP vulnerabilities on Thursday.

China’s industry ministry urged organizations and users to inspect systems immediately and upgrade to the latest secure version of PHP. It also recommended strengthening cybersecurity monitoring and changing accounts, passwords and keys where necessary.

South Korea raised its private-sector cybersecurity alert level and activated emergency response measures, citing concerns over an increased risk of hacking attacks.

Although the findings raise interesting questions about reported past-life memories, scientists have not established that reincarnation is real.

The new open-source model speaks the language of DNA and can help researchers understand the effects of any changes on gene activity and health.

The Cali Fund, set up to raise $1bn a year for biodiversity from drug companies, remains near empty

Big pharmaceutical companies have been accused of “free-riding on nature”, after a landmark biodiversity fund that invites businesses to put some of their profits back into conservation was left virtually empty.

The Cali Fund set out to raise $1bn (£750m) annually, by asking companies that profit from nature’s genetics to contribute towards conservation in low-income countries. But more than 18 months after the fund was launched, it remains far below this target.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Rebecca Cole/The Guardian

© Photograph: Rebecca Cole/The Guardian

© Photograph: Rebecca Cole/The Guardian

The Cali Fund, set up to raise $1bn a year for biodiversity from drug companies, remains near empty

Big pharmaceutical companies have been accused of “free-riding on nature”, after a landmark biodiversity fund that invites businesses to put some of their profits back into conservation was left virtually empty.

The Cali Fund set out to raise $1bn (£750m) annually, by asking companies that profit from nature’s genetics to contribute towards conservation in low-income countries. But more than 18 months after the fund was launched, it remains far below this target.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Rebecca Cole/The Guardian

© Photograph: Rebecca Cole/The Guardian

© Photograph: Rebecca Cole/The Guardian

In the early 5th century, a woman of high rank was buried beside an old Roman posting station on the Via Augusta, in what is now the province of Castellón. Her grave held a glass cup and two gold pins in a style from the Danube region. Her brother died in Mérida, the Roman city […]

Social activities seem particularly effective at keeping mind sharp

© AFP via Getty

Social activities seem particularly effective at keeping mind sharp

© AFP via Getty

Social activities seem particularly effective at keeping mind sharp

© AFP via Getty

Elon Musk’s public endorsement this week of a potential $3.5 trillion merger between SpaceX SPCX.O and Tesla TSLA.O has rattled some insiders involved in the discussions, who worry his comments could invite shareholder scrutiny and delay the process by several weeks, according to a person with direct knowledge of the talks.

The disclosure created a “mess” for the process, as it could lead to questions about how well Tesla shareholders’ interests would be represented, the person said. The concerns reflect similarities some participants see with Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity, which sparked years of litigation over Musk’s role in the deal.

Musk, who serves as CEO of both SpaceX and Tesla and owns significant stakes in each company, this week told investors that the two companies were examining what would be the largest corporate transaction in history and revealed that both had formed special committees to evaluate it. The backlash to those remarks is reported here for the first time.

The parties have hired advisers, but discussions are at an early stage, three sources familiar with the matter said. SpaceX approached Tesla in recent weeks, and the companies have been discussing a range of transaction structures, including a SpaceX acquisition of Tesla or a merger under a newly formed holding company, the person familiar with the matter said. They are weighing different forms of merger consideration, including an all-stock deal, the person said. These details of the talks have not been previously reported.

Tesla, SpaceX and Musk did not respond to requests for comment.

SolarCity deal raises legal concerns

In related-party transactions such as a SpaceX-Tesla merger, independent board members typically oversee the process to safeguard public shareholders’ interests.

That issue loomed large in Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity, which triggered years of litigation after shareholders alleged the world’s richest man had influenced the process to bail out his investment in the struggling rooftop solar company. At the time, Musk owned roughly 22% of both Tesla and SolarCity, which was founded by his cousins.

Shareholders argued that Musk’s involvement and public support undermined the deal’s fairness. Central to the case were claims that despite his minority stake, Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla due to his ties to board members and domineering style.

The Delaware Supreme Court later noted that plaintiffs’ contention of the absence of an independent committee, together with “certain other facts concerning Musk’s involvement in and public support for the transaction,” warranted the finding of unfair dealing.

The courts ultimately upheld the acquisition as fair, though it took several years for the case to be resolved and Tesla directors settled allegations for $60 million.

Musk excluded from merger negotiations

Musk owns nearly a fifth of Tesla and just under half of SpaceX, and analysts have said a merger would give him control of the combined entity. On Tuesday’s call with investors, Musk acknowledged that as a conflicted party he cannot be part of the discussions of the special committees. Advisers are also in contact with his lawyers to ensure Musk is recused from the merger discussions, the source familiar with the talks said.

Eric Talley, a law professor at Columbia University, said a merger could benefit shareholders by eliminating the need for Musk to divide his time between the two companies. He added that any legal challenge may be harder to predict than the SolarCity case because Tesla is now incorporated in Texas rather than Delaware.

“The Texas thing is a wild card. No one knows how Texas deals with cases like this because Texas never dealt with cases like this,” Talley said, noting that Texas has sought to establish itself as a business-friendly alternative to Delaware, and Musk’s comments so far were not necessarily problematic.

Ultimately, he said, litigation risk would hinge on the terms of any transaction.

“Who’s going to get the better side of this deal? And that’s usually what gives rise to litigation,” Talley said.

Public comments could delay historic deal

People involved in the process worry Musk’s public endorsement of the merger and disclosure of talks could intensify investor scrutiny, as interested parties typically avoid expressing views publicly while independent directors evaluate a deal, the source said.

The SolarCity case could become a reference point for investors and courts assessing any future SpaceX-Tesla transaction if advisers fail to fully insulate the special committees from Musk’s influence, the source added.

A tie-up between Tesla and SpaceX would be the biggest deal in history, creating one of the world’s largest industrial and technology groups. It would surpass Musk’s acquisition earlier this year of his artificial intelligence company xAI by SpaceX, which ranks among the largest corporate transactions ever announced.

A deal of this size would also face scrutiny from global regulators, especially due to Tesla’s business in China and SpaceX’s work in US defense and AI.

Artisans in third century BC created thousands of life-size terracotta figures to guard tomb of Emperor Qin Shihuang near Xi'an

© AFP/Getty