When Elon Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, the chattering class of economic soothsayers and media prophets unleashed a cascade of dire predictions. Paul Krugman, writing with his familiar blend of certainty and inaccuracy in The New York Times, foresaw a “death spiral.” Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich proclaimed the platform would become “a shell.” The Atlantic and Vanity Fair, demonstrating the creativity of their editorial departments, both landed on “disaster” as their descriptor of choice. 

That chorus didn’t fall silent after Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. In fact only last week, The New York Times posted this short video for the 4.6 million subscribers to its YouTube channel. 

[You really need to watch the video!] 

“While he’s cut costs by slashing back budgets and reducing headcount by around 80% of people, corresponding revenue has also gone down,” says the NYT narrator. “Its valuation per investors has declined significantly from the 44 billion that musk paid for the company in 2022.”

Yet X numbers released only a week after this NYT video tell a much different story. And if you can smell what the Times was cooking, you’ll know Musk and his big-testicle boy band are about to lead the U.S. government to the same fate that has befallen Twitter (X).  

In 2024, X posted EBITDA of $1.25 billion—nearly double Twitter’s pre-Musk peak of $682 million in 2021. Let’s repeat that because you’re likely seeing it for the first time. Last year, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter doubled its peak pre-Elon earnings. This remarkable turnaround occurred despite—or perhaps because of—Musk’s slash-and-burn approach to corporate bloat. He drastically reduced the company’s workforce from its previous 7,500 employees. 

The financial transformation seems particularly striking when you examine the efficiency metrics. While X’s 2024 revenue of $2.7 billion represents roughly half of Twitter’s pre-Musk $5 billion, the company’s costs have plummeted to approximately one-quarter of their previous levels. This restructuring has produced a leaner, more profitable enterprise that has apparently mastered the art of doing more with less—a concept that seems to have eluded Twitter’s previous management and its army of content moderators. 

Wall Street, ever the pragmatic arbiter of value, has delivered its own verdict. On Feb. 13, The Wall Street Journal reported Morgan Stanley completed the sale of $5.5 billion in X-backed debt—significantly upsized from the planned $3 billion offering because of surging investor demand. The loans, purchased at 97 cents on the dollar by heavyweight investors like Pimco and Citadel, carry an interest rate of approximately 11%. “The banks have now sold nearly all of their X debt, leaving roughly $1 billion on their balance sheets,” the WSJ reported. That represents a remarkable reversal from earlier attempts to offload the debt, which met with skepticism in the market. 

The return of major advertisers has also bolstered the platform’s revival. Amazon has increased its ad spending, and Apple—which had publicly divorced itself from the platform in 2023—is reportedly considering a reconciliation. This advertiser renaissance arrives as X begins to expand its revenue streams beyond advertising. It plans to launch X Payments, a PayPal-like service, and leverage its strategic position within Musk’s broader technology empire. 

Perhaps most notably, X holds a substantial stake in xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence venture, valued between $6 billion and $12.5 billion based on xAI’s current $50 billion valuation. This partnership, combined with potential synergies with SpaceX’s Starlink network, suggests a future far removed from the apocalyptic visions of X’s critics. After all, Starlink aims to provide direct-to-cell phone service to more than a billion devices by 2026.

Now, in what might be considered the ultimate validation of Musk’s controversial restructuring, X is reportedly in discussions to raise new funding at a $44 billion valuation—matching the original 2022 acquisition price. This development is particularly striking given the Fidelity Investments (FNF) December markdown of its Twitter stake by approximately 70%. The timing of these funding talks coincides with broader success across Musk’s business empire. Stock in Tesla (TSLA) has surged by more than 40% since Trump’s election, and SpaceX has achieved a $350 billion valuation, cementing its position as the world’s most valuable tech startup. 

The debt markets have delivered their own verdict on X’s transformation. Morgan Stanley (MS) recently sold $3 billion of X debt at face value in a dramatic shift from earlier attempts that met with reluctance from investors. This improved sentiment has apparently sparked broader interest among buyers, but sources familiar with the current funding discussions caution that terms could change or the financing effort could be abandoned entirely. 

The platform’s resurgence offers a masterclass in the perils of allowing partisan media to cloud economic analysis. Former NBC News reporter Ben Collins’ speculation about X “literally stop[ping] being a website” now reads like satire. Dave Troy’s conspiracy theory about Musk deliberately destroying the platform, published in The Washington Spectator, serves as a testament to the blindness induced by ideological fervor. 

One might suggest that the next time Krugman predicts a spiral of any kind, investors should consider it a buy signal. After all, this is the same Nobel laureate who, in 1998, predicted that “by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” 

As X enters 2025 with strengthened financials and expanding technological capabilities, the platform stands as a rebuke to those who confused their political aversions with business acumen. The transformation of Twitter into X may not have followed the traditional corporate playbook, but the numbers suggest that sometimes the conventional wisdom of the commentariat is worth exactly what users pay to read it. 

Musk himself, displaying his characteristic subtlety on the platform, summed up the situation: “It’s almost like I’m good with money.” Given the current trajectory, even his critics might be forced to acknowledge that, in this instance, his boast carries the inconvenient weight of truth. 

Jeff Joseph is Luckbox editorial director.