Elon Musk

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares22 Views

    Trump threatens to ‘federalize’ DC after attack on Doge staffer

    by

    Donald Trump is threatening to strip Washington DC of its local governance and place the US capital under direct federal control, citing what he described as rampant youth crime following an alleged assault on a federal employee who worked for the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge).In a post on his Truth Social platform, the president said he would “federalize” the city if local authorities failed to address crime, specifically calling for minors as young as 14 to be prosecuted as adults.“Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control,” Trump wrote. “If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run.”The threat received backing from Elon Musk, after the billionaire described an incident in which a member of the Doge team was allegedly “severely beaten to the point of concussion” while defending a woman from assault in the capital.“A few days ago, a gang of about a dozen young men tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC,” Musk posted on X. “A @Doge team member saw what was happening, ran to defend her and was severely beaten to the point of concussion, but he saved her. It is time to federalize DC.”The victim was identified by friends and the police as Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old known as “Big Balls”, one of Doge’s most recognizable staffers who joined Doge in January. He reportedly left in June, and is currently employed at the Social Security Administration. According to a police report obtained by Politico, Coristine was assaulted at approximately 3am on Sunday by about 10 juveniles near Dupont Circle.Police arrested two 15-year-olds from Maryland, a boy and a girl, as they attempted to flee the scene, and charged them with attempted carjacking. A black iPhone 16 valued at $1,000 was reported stolen during the incident.Trump’s post, which included images of a bloodied and shirtless Coristine, concluded: “If this continues, I am going to exert my powers, and FEDERALIZE this City. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”Washington DC currently operates under “home rule”, established in 1973, which grants the city an elected mayor and council while maintaining ultimate congressional oversight. No president has attempted to revoke this arrangement since its creation.Trump’s threat could theoretically take several forms. The constitution grants Congress broad authority over the federal district, though completely suspending local governance would probably require congressional legislation. Trump could also deploy federal law enforcement officers or national guard troops under executive authority, as he did during 2020 protests when federal forces cleared Lafayette Square outside the White House over local officials’ objections.But fully stripping the city’s home rule would probably face fierce Democratic opposition in Congress. Any such move would require congressional legislation that Democrats could block or attempt to challenge in federal courts.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe president targeted DC’s juvenile justice system specifically. “The Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these ‘minors’ as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14,” he wrote, referring to alleged attackers he described as “local thugs” and putting the word “youths” in quotation marks.Washington DC, with a population of about 700,000, has seen violent crime decline in the first half of 2025 compared with the previous year, and 2024 marked a 30-year low, according to a pre-Trump January report by the Department of Justice. The Democratic-controlled city has frequently clashed with Trump over federal interventions and has long sought statehood, which would grant it full self-governance and congressional representation – which Republican lawmakers have opposed.The office of the DC mayor, Muriel Bowser, declined a request for comment. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares168 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk claims his America party will change US politics. Experts disagree

      by

      “You want a new political party and you shall have it!” Elon Musk declared in early July.The world’s richest man is never one to shy away from grandiose statements, and he continued: “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”The America party, Musk hopes, will be a viable alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties: a political organization that can influence the future of US politics. He has mooted running candidates for two to three Senate seats and up to 10 House districts. Given the tight divide between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, Musk believes capturing the small number of seats “would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws”.Given there is consistently strong support for an alternative to the Big Two parties, it should be a good idea, right?Wrong, said Bernard Tamas, professor of political science at Valdosta State University and author of The Demise and Rebirth of American Third Parties.“At this moment in American politics, I see no evidence that you’re going to get another party winning seats in Congress and actually being able to have an impact in the government,” Tamas said.“It’s not just the money that Democrats and Republicans have. They have all the resources. They have the money. They have 150 years of structure. They have all the professional politicians, and they have all the consultants, and they have all the Madison Avenue ad companies working for them.”The whole concept of the America party seemingly came together in a matter of weeks, following the famous row between Musk and Donald Trump. And as with many ideas born out of spite and fury, certain elements appear to have not been fully thought through. Americaparty.com, for example, is already registered to someone else, who now appears to be trying to sell the domain name for $6.9m. On X, which Musk owns, @AmericaParty was already taken, so the new venture had to opt for @AmericaPartyX.It’s not yet clear what the party will stand for, beyond opposition to Republicans’ ballooning of the national debt. Musk has yet to elaborate on the “contentious laws” his politicians would challenge, and there is no party platform or manifesto.In any case, third parties have rarely, if ever, been successful in the way Musk envisages. But where they can make a difference is in highlighting issues and pressuring the main two parties to act.“In terms of the parties that really had a big impact, they didn’t win seats,” Tamas said. “The job of third parties is disruption. It’s to sting like a bee. It’s to cause pain.”Tamas pointed to the Progressive party in Wisconsin and the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party, which managed to win key victories over relief for unemployed constituents and banking reform in the state, as examples of political groups that have managed to inflict such a bee sting. That doesn’t appear to be what Musk is going for, however, despite there being an opportunity for a stinging insect.“Here you have the Republican party moving farther and farther to the right, and farther and farther in this kind of Maga direction, with nobody in the Republican party in Congress willing to stand up at all to Trump or this movement,” Tamas said.“It’s a perfect opening for a third party. This is what it looks like historically. But you’re not going to replace them. What you do is you attack them for this. You’re trying to pull them back towards the center.“This is how the third parties have always succeeded. The idea is you cause them pain, and what they do, if it works, is they shift back towards something that reflects more what the public wants, or deals with the issues that the third party is bringing up.”Parties that have pursued the getting-people-elected approach have fared less well than the pain-inflictors. Forward party was founded by Andrew Yang, who had previously run for the Democratic presidential nomination, in 2022, with the slightly call-to-arms style slogan of “Not left. Not right. Forward.” These days the party barely features on the national political landscape, although it does continue to bleat out social media content – a recent 4 July post on Instagram attracted almost 40 likes.At its inception, Forward party figures claimed both the Republican and Democratic parties had become too radical, and said their new venture “can’t be pegged to the traditional left-right spectrum because we aren’t built like the existing parties”.Somehow, a promise to not really have a firm ideological stance on anything isn’t a very sexy pitch to voters. Among the “elected affiliates” named on Forward’s website are the former mayor of Newberry, Florida, a town of 7,300 people, and a man who “is responsible for sanitation and utilities” in the Connecticut borough of Stonington – population 976 people.There is widespread support for a third party. Polls have repeatedly shown that people want a third party. But what that looks like remains to be seen. In Musk’s own survey on social media asking if people wanted him to start a new party, only 65% said yes, and 34% said no, although a poll in early July showed that 14% of voters said they would be very likely to support the party, with 26% somewhat likely.There are already issues with the America party becoming a viable third choice. Musk is approaching eccentric political advisers, including Curtis Yarvin, a rightwing tech blogger who has argued American democracy has run its course and the country should instead be run by a dictator-esque CEO.A more fundamental problem with the America party is unique to Musk: people really don’t like him. A poll last week found that 60% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Musk, compared with 32% in favor.America shall have a third party, Musk declared at the start of his new venture. But does America want this kind of third party, with these kind of aims, run by this kind of man? More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Doge wants to replace our institutions with a tech utopia. It won’t work | Mike Pepi

      by

      Elon Musk has stepped away from Doge with very little “efficiency” to show for it. While it may have been more of a showpiece than real policy, this brutal and short experiment in Silicon Valley governance reveals a long-simmering battle between digital utopians and the institutional infrastructures critical to functioning democracies.Doge’s website dubiously claims $190bn in savings. The receipts show that they are less about efficiency than they are aimed at effective dissolution, a fate met by USAID, the federal agency responsible for distributing foreign assistance.Don’t be fooled. These brash new reductions are not just your garden-variety small-government crusades or culture-war skirmishes. This administration’s war on institutions derives from the newfound power of Silicon Valley ideology – a techno-determinism that views each institution’s function as potential raw material for capture by private digital platforms.All the while, Elon Musk sold the White House on an “AI-first strategy” for the US government. The recent executive order Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence mandates that barely tested Silicon Valley AI be jammed into the government’s work. It directs agencies to use AI to “lessen the burden of bureaucratic restrictions”. This is a thinly veiled attempt not just to reduce institutional activities; it’s also a degradation play.Doge makes plain an often misunderstood tension: Silicon Valley’s final dream is a world without institutions. Since the rise of the internet, startups have long encouraged, and profited from, institutional decline. This anti-institutionalism goes back to the roots of computing. Charles Babbage’s difference engine, central to modern computing, was built on technologies meant to control labor. It was a reflection of Babbage’s belief that the highest intention of the factory manager was to reduce the skill and cognitive complexity of laborers’ tasks. If the machine could manage production, humans – now smoothed-out automatons – would hardly need accompanying social protections, or even any governance at all.In 1948, Norbert Wiener founded the discipline of cybernetics, “the science of control and communications in the animal and machine”. This automated governance was eventually brought into direct competition with public institutions. The revolt against the state took many forms in the history of computing thereafter, from the libertarian California ideology (“information wants to be free”) to the very idea that a new “cyberspace” would be liberated from governments. Here the individual is an entrepreneur of the mind, able to instantly improve their lot without the mediating hand of the institutional form.To get to the real heart of Doge’s ideology, read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond’s manifesto on building open-source software. For Raymond, cathedrals are “carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation”. This slow, deliberate work is no match for the networked and digitally enabled bazaar, where many software developers move fast by releasing early and often, delegate everything they can, and are open to the point of promiscuity. Something like scripture for computer engineers, Raymond’s ideas soon jumped out of the network and into governance of the physical world, where all human organizations were scrutinized as the maligned “cathedral”.Entrepreneurs loved this idea, too. The management method known as the “lean startup” is a lightweight program of data-driven optimizations designed to quickly scale businesses. Instead of human labor and judgment, lean startups use data and algorithms to experiment their way toward governance.But there’s a catch: a public institution is not supposed to be run like a digital startup. Silicon Valley may have carved out a niche in which its organizational philosophies mastered food delivery apps, AI girlfriends and money-laundering shitcoins, but the moment they take these methods to institutions entrusted with public welfare, they’ve lost the plot. Governments don’t have customers – they care for citizens. If classical liberalism had the state and its many sovereign institutions, and neoliberalism had the divine hand of the free market, today’s platform class elevates computation as the ultimate arbiter of truth. When presented with an institutional force, the platform class first asks: how could this be delivered by way of a digital platform?Digital technology doesn’t have to be this way. Good software can augment institutions, not be the rationale for their deletion. Building this future requires undoing Silicon Valley’s pernicious opposition to the institutional form. By giving into the digital utopian’s anti-institutionalism, we allowed them to reshape government according to their growth-at-all-costs logic.If the newly empowered digital utopianism goes unchecked, we face a platform-archy where black-box AI makes decisions once adjudicated through democratic institutions. This isn’t just a Silicon Valley efficiency fantasy; it’s on the roadmap of every authoritarian who ever sniffed power.Thankfully, the anti-Doge backlash was swift. The abrupt layoffs backfired, leading many Americans to fully understand just how much research and resources for advancing science, medicine and culture are tied to federal support.In the private sector, since capital is no longer free after the federal government hiked interest rates in 2022, the growth of the big Silicon Valley platforms have almost completely stalled. In search of an answer, Silicon Valley is making a big bet on AI, overwhelming users with automated answers that hallucinate and mislead at every turn. It’s becoming harder and harder for the average person to buy what the digital utopians are selling.The response to this assault on our institutions might be a kind of Digital New Deal – a public plan for institutions in the AI era. This 21st-century economics must go well beyond solving for mass unemployment. Reconstructing the institutional foundations of public goods such as journalism, libraries and higher education requires more than just restoring the public funds stripped by Doge. It will require forceful assertions about their regulatory value in the face of a fully automated slop state. Governments come and go, but free and open institutions are critical to the functioning of democracy. If we make the mistake of misrecognizing digital platforms for public institutions, we will not easily reverse Doge’s mistakes.

      Mike Pepi is a technologist and author who has written widely about the intersection between culture and the Internet. His book, Against Platforms: Surviving Digital Utopia, was published by Melville House in 2025 More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court clears way for Trump officials to resume mass government firings

      by

      The US supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers that critics warn could threaten critical government services.Extending a winning streak for the US president, the justices on Tuesday lifted a lower court order that had frozen sweeping federal layoffs known as “reductions in force” while litigation in the case proceeds.The decision could result in hundreds of thousands of job losses at the departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and other agencies.Democrats condemned the ruling. Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist, said: “I’m disappointed but I’m not shocked or surprised. This rightwing activist court has proven ruling after ruling, time after time, that they are going to sing the songs and dance to the tune of Trumpism. A lot of this is just implementation of what we saw previewed in Project 2025.”Project 2025, a plan drawn up by the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, set out a blueprint for downsizing government. Trump has claimed that voters gave him a mandate for the effort and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through the “department of government efficiency”, or Doge, though Musk has since departed.In February, Trump announced “a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy” in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the workforce and gutting offices.In its brief unsigned order on Tuesday, the supreme court said Trump’s administration was “likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order” and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies.Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision, which overturns San Francisco-based district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May ruling.Jackson wrote that Illston’s “temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture”.She also described her colleagues as making the “wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground”.Illston had argued in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. “As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,” she wrote.The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programmes. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out.Illston’s ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul pursued by Trump and Doge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programmes or have been placed on leave.The administration had previously challenged Illston’s order at the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals but lost in a 2-1 ruling on 30 May. That prompted the justice department to make an emergency request to the supreme court, contending that controlling the personnel of federal agencies “lies at the heartland” of the president’s executive branch authority.The plaintiffs had urged the supreme court to deny the justice department’s request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its “breakneck reorganization”, they wrote, would mean that “programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe supreme court’s rejection of that argument on Tuesday was welcomed by Trump allies. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, posted on the X social media platform: “Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump’s authority over federal personnel – another Supreme Court victory thanks to @thejusticedept attorneys. Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before.The state department wrote on X: “Today’s near unanimous decision from the Supreme Court further confirms that the law was on our side throughout this entire process. We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan at the State Department, as announced earlier this year. This is yet another testament to President Trump’s dedication to following through on an America First agenda.”In recent months the supreme court has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January.It cleared the way for Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, blocked a judge’s order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with Doge. In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.On Tuesday the Democracy Forward coalition condemned the supreme court for intervening in what it called Trump’s unlawful reorganisation of the federal government. It said in a statement: “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.” More

    • 263 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump calls Elon Musk’s new political party ‘ridiculous’ and says Tesla owner is ‘off the rails’ – US politics live

      by

      Welcome to our live coverage of US politics and the second Trump administration.Donald Trump has hit out at Elon Musk’s decision to start and bankroll a new US political party that the tech billionaire believes can offer a viable alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One yesterday, the US president said:
      I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party. It’s always been a two-party system and I think starting a third party just adds to the confusion.
      Shortly after speaking about his former ally, Trump posted further comments on his Truth Social platform, writing:
      I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks.
      Trump and Musk were formerly close allies, with the Tesla boss and X owner appointed to slash federal spending through the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) from January through May.Musk fell out with the Republican president over his sprawling tax and spending plan, signed into law on Friday, which is expected to add at least $3 trillion (£2.2 trillion) to the US’s already huge $37tn (£27tn) debt pile. Musk has argued that the bill, which he has described as “utterly insane and destructive”, would irresponsibly add to the US national debt.Musk, the world’s richest person, posted on X over the weekend that he had set up the America Party to challenge the Republican and Democratic “Uniparty”. The details of the structure of the new venture or a timeline for its creation are still unclear.But some of his social media posts suggests the new political party would focus on two or three Senate seats, and eight to 10 House districts.We will have more on this and other US politics stories throughout the day so stick with us.Donald Trump has said his administration plans to start sending letters on Monday to US trade partners dictating new tariffs, amid confusion over when the new rates will come into effect.“It could be 12, maybe 15 [letters],” the president told reporters, “and we’ve made deals also, so we’re going to have a combination of letters and some deals have been made.”With his previously announced 90-day pause on tariffs set to end on 9 July, the president was asked if the new rates would come into effect this week or on 1 August, as some officials had suggested.“No, there are going to be tariffs, the tariffs, the tariffs are going to be, the tariffs,” the president began uncertainly. “I think we’ll have most countries done by July 9, yeah. Either a letter or a deal.”Sensing the confusion, his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, jumped in to add: “But they go into effect on August 1. Tariffs go into effect August 1, but the president is setting the rates and the deals right now.”You can read the full story, by my colleagues Robert Mackey, Lauren Almeida and Lisa O’Carroll, here:The US is extremely mindful of BRICS’ economic might and its growing influence on the diplomatic stage. The group, often described as the developing world’s alternative to the G7 group of nations, has undergone a recent rapid expansion.BRICS was founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, but the group last year expanded to include Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the UAE.Some of its members have denounced US tariff policies and have suggested reforms to how major currencies are valued.The group pushes for greater representation for emerging economies and thinks western countries have a disproportionate influence on global organisations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.In other news, Donald Trump has widened his trade war after saying the US will impose an additional 10% tariff on any countries aligning themselves with the “anti-American policies” of the BRICS group of developing nations that include China and Russia.Trump wrote on social media:
      Any country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy.
      His comments came after a joint Sunday statement from the opening of the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro in which the group warned the rise in tariffs threatened global trade, continuing its veiled criticism of Trump’s erratic tariff policies.Since his return to the White House, Trump has announced a series of steep import taxes on foreign goods, arguing they will protect American jobs and the US manufacturing industry.In April, in line with this protectionist view, Trump announced a 10% base tariff rate on most countries and additional duties ranging up to 50%, although he later delayed the effective date for all but 10% duties until 9 July.The negotiating window until 9 July has led to announced deals only with the UK and Vietnam. You can read more on Trump’s tariff threat in our business live blog.My colleagues Richard Luscombe and Robert Mackey have a little more detail about how the feud between the world’s richest man and the world’s most powerful man has recently escalated. Here is an extract from their story:
      When the pair fell out earlier in the summer, Musk lashed out during an astonishing social media duel in which he stated Trump’s name was in the files relating to associates of the late pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
      Musk later deleted the post and apologized to the president as they embarked on an uneasy truce. On Sunday, however, Musk returned to the subject, reposting a photo of the jailed Epstein facilitator Ghislaine Maxwell that questioned why she was the only person in prison while men who engaged in sex with underage girls – a crime colloquially known in the US as statutory rape – were not.
      In other posts he said it would be “not hard” to break the two-party stranglehold in US politics enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans…
      Trump has made clear his feelings about his former friend in recent days after criticism of the bill. In response to Musk’s posts calling the bill “insane”, Trump said he might “look into” deporting the South African-born, naturalized US citizen billionaire.
      Welcome to our live coverage of US politics and the second Trump administration.Donald Trump has hit out at Elon Musk’s decision to start and bankroll a new US political party that the tech billionaire believes can offer a viable alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One yesterday, the US president said:
      I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party. It’s always been a two-party system and I think starting a third party just adds to the confusion.
      Shortly after speaking about his former ally, Trump posted further comments on his Truth Social platform, writing:
      I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks.
      Trump and Musk were formerly close allies, with the Tesla boss and X owner appointed to slash federal spending through the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) from January through May.Musk fell out with the Republican president over his sprawling tax and spending plan, signed into law on Friday, which is expected to add at least $3 trillion (£2.2 trillion) to the US’s already huge $37tn (£27tn) debt pile. Musk has argued that the bill, which he has described as “utterly insane and destructive”, would irresponsibly add to the US national debt.Musk, the world’s richest person, posted on X over the weekend that he had set up the America Party to challenge the Republican and Democratic “Uniparty”. The details of the structure of the new venture or a timeline for its creation are still unclear.But some of his social media posts suggests the new political party would focus on two or three Senate seats, and eight to 10 House districts.We will have more on this and other US politics stories throughout the day so stick with us. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Tesla shares dive as investors fear new Elon Musk political party will damage brand

      by

      Shares in Tesla are heading for a sharp fall in the US as investors fear Elon Musk’s launch of a new political party will present further problems for the electric carmaker.Tesla stock was down more than 7% in pre-market trading on Monday, threatening to wipe approximately $70bn (£51bn) off the company’s value when Wall Street opens.If the shares fell by that much, the value of Musk’s stock would fall by more than $9bn to about $120bn. The Tesla and Space X boss remains comfortably the world’s richest person, with a wealth of about $400bn, according to Forbes.Tesla is valued at just under $1tn but its shares have come under pressure owing to the Tesla CEO’s relationship with Donald Trump.First, Musk’s strong support for the US president created a consumer backlash and now the antagonistic turn in his relationship with Trump has investors worried Musk will be distracted from his day job, or that the White House will punish his businesses.Dan Ives, analyst at Wedbush Securities, said Musk’s announcement that he is bankrolling a US political party will alarm investors.“Very simply, Musk diving deeper into politics and now trying to take on the Beltway establishment is exactly the opposite direction that Tesla investors/shareholders want him to take during this crucial period for the Tesla story,” Ives said, adding that there was a “broader sense of exhaustion” among Tesla investors that Musk – the company’s largest shareholder – will not stay out of politics.Trump on Sunday called Musk’s plans to form the America party “ridiculous”, launching new barbs at the world’s richest person.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a post on the Truth Social tech platform, Trump wrote: “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks.”Musk announced the creation of the America party on his X platform at the weekend. He wrote: “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America party is formed to give you back your freedom.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Musk should stay out of politics, treasury secretary says after ‘America’ party news

      by

      Elon Musk should focus on running his companies and keep himself out of politics, Donald Trump’s treasury secretary said on Sunday, a day after the world’s richest person – and a former White House adviser – announced the formation of a new political party.“The principles of Doge were very popular – I think if you looked at the polling Elon was not,” Scott Bessent said on CNN’s State of the Union, referring to the so-called “department of government efficiency” that Musk temporarily headed after Trump’s second presidency began in January.Opinion polls found Doge and Musk’s work implementing brutal spending and job cuts within the federal government to be deeply unpopular. And Bessent alluded to how investors in Musk’s companies – including the electrical vehicle maker Tesla, whose sales have suffered during Doge’s existence – publicly pleaded for his time with the Trump administration to be short-lived.“So I believe that the boards of directors at his various companies wanted him to come back and run those companies,” Bessent remarked. “I imagine that those boards of directors did not like this announcement yesterday, and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities.”Bessent’s reaction came after Musk delivered on his promise to form and bankroll a new US political party, and accused his one-time ally Trump of “bankrupting” the country by signing his massive tax and spending bill into law.The tech billionaire announced the creation of the America party in a series of posts late on Saturday and early Sunday to X, the social media platform he owns.“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” he wrote.“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”Musk, who was appointed to slash federal spending through the unofficial Doge from January through May, has been a vocal critic of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said would increase the national deficit by $3.3tn (£2.85tn) through 2034.It provides substantial tax cuts for the super wealthy while slashing federal safety net welfare programs, with up to 10.6 million people losing healthcare insurance.The pair have feuded over its cost and impacts since Musk left the government in May, and on Friday, when Trump signed the bill into law in a Fourth of July picnic at the White House, the Tesla and SpaceX chief opened a poll on X: “the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system”.Respondents voted two to one in the affirmative, Musk announced late on Saturday. He gave few details about the structure of his new venture or a timeline for its creation. But his earlier posts suggested it would focus on two or three Senate seats, and eight to 10 House districts.Both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Republicans.“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,” Musk said.Bessent was one Trump ally to quickly take a swipe at Musk’s move.Musk’s series of posts to X, which continued into the early hours of Sunday, also appeared to indicate that his on-again, off-again relationship with Trump was firmly back in negative territory.When the pair fell out earlier in the summer, Musk lashed out during an astonishing social media duel in which he stated Trump’s name was in the files relating to associates of the late pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.Musk later deleted the post and apologized to the president as they embarked on an uneasy truce. On Sunday, however, Musk returned to the subject, reposting a photo of the jailed Epstein facilitator Ghislaine Maxwell that questioned why she was the only person in prison while men who engaged in sex with underage girls – a crime colloquially known in the US as statutory rape – were not.In other posts he said it would be “not hard” to break the two-party stranglehold in US politics enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans. And he questioned “when & where should we hold the inaugural American Party congress? This will be super fun!”There was no immediate comment from the White House about Musk’s announcement, but Trump has made clear his feelings about his former friend in recent days after criticism of the bill.In response to Musk’s posts calling the bill “insane”, Trump said he might “look into” deporting the South African-born, naturalized US citizen billionaire. The president also mused about slashing subsidies to his companies, especially SpaceX, which holds billions of dollars in government contracts.“Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?” Trump asked reporters on Tuesday.There is no requirement for new political parties in the US to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) initially, but reporting regulations kick in once spending surpasses what the FEC calls “certain thresholds”.Musk is estimated to have spent more than $275m of his personal fortune helping to get Trump elected to a second term in the White House in last November’s presidential election. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Maga influencer and de facto national security adviser Laura Loomer holds outsized sway on Trump

      by

      After years of claiming to be the vanguard of a new “America First” isolationist movement rebelling against the neoconservative policies of the George W Bush administration that led to the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Maga’s online influencers are cheering for another war in the Middle East.And not just any war: they are applauding Donald Trump’s high-risk decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that was considered a war too far even by the Bush administration.Maga’s quick flip-flop has made it clear that Maga was never really anti-war. Maga is about xenophobia, not isolationism, and its support for Trump’s decision to bomb a Muslim country fits in with its support for his draconian campaign against immigrants.But above all, Maga is about fealty to Trump.That formula certainly helps explain why Laura Loomer, who has emerged as the most prominent Maga America First influencer in the early days of Trump’s second term, has given her full support to his Iran strike.In early April, Loomer, a 32-year-old pro-Trump online influencer widely seen as a rightwing conspiracy theorist, met with Trump and gave him a list of names of people on the staff of the national security council that she believed were not loyal enough to Trump or at least had professional backgrounds that she considered suspect. Trump fired six staffers. Later, national security adviser Mike Waltz, whom Loomer had criticized for his role in the Signalgate chat leak scandal, was ousted as well.Loomer doesn’t have a job in the government, but she has still emerged as one of Trump’s most important and most polarizing foreign policy advisers in the early days of his second administration. She has had direct access to Trump and has used it to push for ideological purges inside the administration, instilling fear and anger among national security professionals.In fact, when it comes to the national security side of the Trump administration, Loomer has been something akin to a one-woman Doge. Now the big question is how long her influence with Trump will last, or whether she will soon go out the same way as Elon Musk.Loomer’s power in the Trump administration is ill-defined. Her many critics say she has just been taking credit for moves that Trump was already planning. But Trump himself has said he takes her seriously, so it may be more accurate to describe her as Trump’s de facto national security adviser.Press reports recently suggested that Loomer’s status in the White House was waning because she had overreached, much like Musk. She has left a trail of bitter Trump aides, while there have also been reports that Trump himself has grown weary of her. But, as if to disprove the reports that she was getting frozen out, Loomer had a private meeting with JD Vance in early June.In a revealing interview on journalist Tara Palmeri’s podcast in late April, Loomer said that her White House access came directly from Trump himself, and that she maintained her relationship with the president even as his aides tried to keep her out. “Donald Trump is my biggest ally in the White House,” she said.“I don’t have delusions of grandeur, but I certainly do believe that a lot of the information I have given him has protected him and has prevented disasters from happening,” she added. “I believe that the information that I provide is valuable. And I believe that it has proven itself to be an asset to President Trump and his apparatus. I don’t know why some of the people that work for him don’t want that information around him. But I’m not going to let that stop me. I’m going to keep on uncovering information and finding ways to get it to President Trump – and informing President Trump about individuals within his inner circle that are working against his agenda.”Loomer added that “it all comes down to vetting at the end of the day”.Loomer’s close ties to Trump first became big news during the 2024 presidential campaign, when she traveled with the Republican candidate on his campaign plane despite repeated efforts by Trump aides to keep her away. The aides were particularly upset that Loomer traveled with Trump on September 11, since she had earlier gained online infamy after posting a video claiming that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an “inside job”. To be sure, fears by his aides that Trump was associating with a conspiracy theorist ignored the fact that he relishes in spreading conspiracy theories far and wide. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promoted a conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio; that xenophobic lie became the hallmark of Trump’s fall campaign.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOnce Trump returned to office, Loomer began to flex her newfound power, and even professional ties to top Trump administration officials weren’t enough to protect staffers from being fired after Loomer gave her list of names to Trump. Among those fired at the NSC was Brian Walsh, who had worked on the staff of the Senate intelligence committee for Marco Rubio, now serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser, when Rubio was in the Senate.The most stunning purge attributed to Loomer came in April when Trump fired Gen Timothy Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency, along with his top deputy, after they had found their way on to Loomer’s list as well. The fact that Loomer could trigger the firing of a senior military officer in charge of the nation’s largest intelligence agency finally led to a bipartisan outcry in Washington. A group of Senate Democrats wrote to Trump saying that the firings were “inexplicable”, while Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican senator who is now a leading Trump critic, lamented that experienced military leaders were being ousted while “amateur isolationists” are in senior policy positions. The moves even troubled Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican senator and Trump loyalist who is the chair of the cybersecurity subcommittee of the Senate armed services committee. Rounds made a point of praising Haugh during a subcommittee hearing soon after his firing and noted that “men and women capable of leading the National Security Agency … are in short supply. We do not have enough of these types of leaders, and a loss of any one of them without strong justification is disappointing.”But like Musk, Loomer has been so red-hot in the early days of Trump’s second term that her fall seems almost inevitable, especially after she began to call out White House actions she didn’t like.In May, for example, she publicly criticized Trump’s decision to accept a luxury jet from Qatar.When news of the gift was first reported, Loomer posted a statement saying: “This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true.” She added: “I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump. I’m so disappointed.” She later backtracked and became more supportive. But later she was critical of Trump’s decision to withdraw the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman to be the head of Nasa, whose nomination she had supported. “There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with @elonmusk,” Loomer posted as the news first broke. Days later, Isaacman suggested that he also believes that his nomination was withdrawn because of his ties to Musk.Loomer has been careful to try to limit her criticism to Trump’s aides, and not to Trump himself. But it is an open question how long that distinction will make a difference for Loomer. During the Palmeri podcast, Loomer said that she is “not going to be a sycophant and sit there and pretend that every little thing is great”. She added that “there’s a lot of incompetence in the White House. There’s a lot of people in positions they shouldn’t be in and they embarrass the president on a daily basis.”That is the backdrop for Loomer’s strong support for Trump’s decision to attack Iran. Perhaps concerned that her earlier criticism was damaging her ties to Trump world, Loomer has been profuse with her praise of Trump’s Iran attack, while also defending her America First credentials. In one post, she asked “How is it not AMERICA FIRST to congratulate those who just made sure Islamists who chant ‘DEATH TO AMERICA’ … never have an opportunity to have a nuke?” She has even gone on the offensive against other rightwing influencers, including Tucker Carlson, who have dared criticize the Iran strike. “I am screenshotting everyone’s posts and I’m going to deliver them in a package to President Trump so he sees who is truly with him and who isn’t,” Loomer posted. “And I think by now everyone knows I mean it when I say I’m going to deliver something to Trump.”For Maga influencers, staying on Trump’s good side seems to matter more than issues of war and peace. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      If the US president threatens to take away freedoms, are we no longer free?

      by

      Threats of retribution from Donald Trump are hardly a novelty, but even by his standards, the US president’s warnings of wrathful vengeance in recent days have represented a dramatic escalation.In the past week, Trump has threatened deportation, loss of US citizenship or arrest against, respectively, the world’s richest person, the prospective future mayor of New York and Joe Biden’s former homeland security secretary.The head-spinning catalogue of warnings may have been aimed at distracting from the increasing unpopularity, according to opinion surveys, of Trump’s agenda, some analysts say. But they also served as further alarm bells for the state of US democracy five-and-a-half months into a presidency that has seen a relentless assault on constitutional norms, institutions and freedom of speech.On Tuesday, Trump turned his sights on none other than Elon Musk, the tech billionaire who, before a recent spectacular fallout, had been his closest ally in ramming through a radical agenda of upending and remaking the US government.But when the Tesla and SpaceX founder vowed to form a new party if Congress passed Trump’s signature “one big beautiful bill” into law, Trump swung into the retribution mode that is now familiar to his Democratic opponents.“Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, menacing both the billions of dollars in federal subsidies received by Musk’s companies, and – it seemed – his US citizenship, which the entrepreneur received in 2002 but which supporters like Steve Bannon have questioned.“No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE.”Trump twisted the knife further the following morning talking to reporters before boarding a flight to Florida.View image in fullscreen“We might have to put Doge on Elon,” he said, referring to the unofficial “department of government efficiency” that has gutted several government agencies and which Musk spearheaded before stepping back from his ad hoc role in late May. “Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible.”Musk’s many critics may have found sympathy hard to come by given his earlier job-slashing endeavors on Trump’s behalf and the $275m he spent last year in helping to elect him.But the wider political implications are worrying, say US democracy campaigners.“Trump is making clear that if he can do that to the world’s richest man, he could certainly do it to you,” said Ian Bassin, co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy. “It’s important, if we believe in the rule of law, that we believe in it whether it is being weaponized against someone that we have sympathy for or someone that we have lost sympathy for.”Musk was not the only target of Trump’s capricious vengeance.He also threatened to investigate the US citizenship of Zohran Mamdani, the Democrats’ prospective candidate for mayor of New York who triumphed in a multicandidate primary election, and publicly called on officials to explore the possibility of arresting Alejandro Mayorkas, the former head of homeland security in the Biden administration.Both scenarios were raised during a highly stage-managed visit to “Alligator Alcatraz”, a forbidding new facility built to house undocumented people rounded up as part of Trump’s flagship mass-deportation policy.After gleefully conjuring images of imprisoned immigrants being forced to flee from alligators and snakes presumed to reside in the neighbouring marshlands, Trump seized on obliging questions from friendly journalists working for rightwing fringe outlets that have been accredited by the administration for White House news events, often at the expense of established media.“Why hasn’t he been arrested yet?” asked Julio Rosas from Blaze Media, referring to Mayorkas, who was widely vilified – and subsequently impeached – by Republicans who blamed him for a record number of immigrant crossings at the southern US border.“Was he given a pardon, Mayorkas?” Trump replied. On being told no, he continued: “I’ll take a look at that one because what he did is beyond incompetence … Somebody told Mayorkas to do that and he followed orders, but that doesn’t necessarily hold him harmless.”Asked by Benny Johnson, a rightwing social media influencer, for his message to “communist” Mamdani – a self-proclaimed democratic socialist – over his pledge not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) roundups of undocumented people if he is elected mayor, Trump said: “Then we will have to arrest him. We don’t need a communist in this country. I’m going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation.”He also falsely suggested that Mamdani, 33 – who became a naturalized US citizen in 2018 after emigrating from Uganda with his ethnic Indian parents when he was a child – was in the country “illegally”, an assertion stemming from a demand by a Republican representative for a justice department investigation into his citizenship application. The representative, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, alleged that Mamdani, who has vocally campaigned for Palestinian rights, gained it through “willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism”.View image in fullscreenThe threat to Mamdani echoed a threat Trump’s border “czar” Tom Homan made to arrest Gavin Newsom, the California governor, last month amid a row over Trump’s deployment of national guard forces in Los Angeles to confront demonstrators protesting against Ice’s arrests of immigrants.Omar Noureldin, senior vice-president with Common Cause, a pro-democracy watchdog, said the animus against Mamdani, who is Muslim, was partly fueled by Islamophobia and racism.“Part of the rhetoric we’ve heard around Mamdani, whether from the president or other political leaders, goes toward his religion, his national origin, race, ethnicity,” he said.“Mamdani has called himself a democratic socialist. There are others, including Bernie Sanders, who call themselves that, but folks aren’t questioning whether or not Bernie Sanders should be a citizen.”Retribution promised to be a theme of Trump’s second presidency even before he returned to the Oval Office in January. On the campaign trail last year, he branded some political opponents – including Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House of Representatives – as “the enemy within”.Since his inauguration in January, he has made petty acts of revenge against both Democrats and Republicans who have crossed him. Biden; Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and last year’s defeated Democratic presidential nominee; and Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 opponent, have all had their security clearances revoked.Secret Service protection details have been removed from Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, who served in Trump’s first administration, despite both being the subject of death threats from Iran because of the 2020 assassination of Qassem Suleimani, a senior Revolutionary Guards commander.Similar fates have befallen Anthony Fauci, the infectious diseases specialist who angered Trump over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as Biden’s adult children, Hunter and Ashley.Trump has also targeted law firms whose lawyers previously acted against him, prompting some to strike deals that will see them perform pro bono services for the administration.View image in fullscreenFor now, widely anticipated acts of retribution against figures like Gen Mark Milley, the former chair of the joint chiefs of staff of the armed forces – whom Trump previously suggested deserved to be executed for “treason” and who expressed fears of being recalled to active duty and then court-martialed – have not materialised.“I [and] people in my world expected that Trump would come up with investigations of any number of people, whether they were involved in the Russia investigation way back when, or the election investigation, or the January 6 insurrection, but by and large he hasn’t done that,” said one veteran Washington insider, who requested anonymity, citing his proximity to people previously identified as potential Trump targets.“There are all kinds of lists floating around … with names of people that might be under investigation, but you’ll never know you’re under investigation until police turn up on your doorstep – and these people are just getting on with their lives.”Yet pro-democracy campaigners say Trump’s latest threats should be taken seriously – especially after several recent detentions of several elected Democratic officials at protests near immigration jails or courts. In the most notorious episode, Alex Padilla, a senator from California, was forced to the floor and handcuffed after trying to question Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, at a press conference.“When the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, threatens to arrest you, that’s as serious as it gets,” said Bassin, a former White House counsel in Barack Obama’s administration.“Whether the DoJ [Department of Justice] opens an investigation or seeks an indictment, either tomorrow, next year or never is beside the point. The threat itself is the attack on our freedoms, because it’s designed to make us all fear that if any one of us opposes or even just criticises the president, we risk being prosecuted.”While some doubt the legal basis of Trump’s threats to Musk, Mayorkas and Mamdani, Noureldin cautioned that they should be taken literally.“Trump is verbose and grandiose, but I think he also backs up his promises with action,” he said. “When the president of the United States says something, we have to take it as serious and literal. I wouldn’t be surprised if at the justice department, there is a group of folks who are trying to figure out a way to [open prosecutions].”But the bigger danger was to the time-honored American notion of freedom, Bassin warned.“One definition of freedom is that you are able to speak your mind, associate with who you want, lead the life that you choose to lead, and that so long as you conduct yourself in accordance with the law, the government will not retaliate against you or punish you for doing those things,” he said. “When the president of the United States makes clear that actually that is not the case, that if you say things he doesn’t like, you will be singled out, and the full force of the state could be brought down on your head, then you’re no longer free.“And if he’s making clear that that’s true for people who have the resources of Elon Musk or the political capital of a Mayorkas or a Mamdani, imagine what it means for people who lack those positions or resources.” More