More stories

  • in

    Elon Musk says he will attend Trump rally at Pennsylvania shooting site

    Elon Musk plans to attend Donald Trump’s rally on Saturday at the site in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the former president narrowly avoided assassination in July.“I will be there to support!” the tech billionaire replied to a post by Trump on Musk’s social media platform, X, saying he was returning to the Butler Farm show grounds.Trump’s decision to hold the rally in the same open-air venue came after a series of harsh reports into Secret Service security failures that allowed a gunman to open fire from a rooftop on the outskirts of the fairgrounds.Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, injured the former president, killed rally attender Corey Comperatore and severely wounded two others as he got off clear shots with an assault rifle before he was killed by federal snipers.Trump and his campaign have indicated they will turn the rally into a triumphant return for the former president, as well as a way to honor those who were killed or injured.Comperatore’s family will attend, along with those injured in the gunfire, Trump and his campaign have said.“What you’re going to see in Butler … tomorrow is the kind of strength and leadership that we are desperate for back in that White House. I think it’s going to be an emotional rally,” Lara Trump told Fox News.The Pittsburgh Gazette said crowd estimates for Saturday’s planned event ranged from 15,000 to as high as 100,000. The Secret Service is expecting as many as 60,000 people.“There is a pilgrimage sense at all the rallies, but this is going to be the one,” said Jen Golbeck, a University of Maryland professor, told the newspaper. “There are definitely people who feel like – and say to me – the hand of God has touched Trump.”Trump said, “I had God on my side” in surviving the shooting and the “providential” moment, which also produced one of the 2024 presidential campaign’s – and any election in US history – most potent images, with Trump rising from a Secret Service huddle, blood streaked across his face, raising his fist and shouting “Fight!”Religious interpretations aside, the assassination attempt was the first of two Trump has now faced. Last month, 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh allegedly aspired to shoot the former president on Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida.Trump has also faced ongoing death threats from Iran, which is also blamed for hacking into his campaign.Trump has accused the Biden administration of intentionally denying security resources to help Kamala Harris, the US vice-president and his Democratic opponent in the November election, by preventing him from addressing large crowds, a signature of his political life.“They couldn’t give me any help. And I’m so angry about it because what they’re doing is interfering in the election,” he said in a Fox News interview.Changes have been made to what he can do on the campaign trail and Trump staffers are on edge, the Associated Press reported. There have been death threats directed at his aides, and his team isn’t as able to quickly organize the mass rallies he prefers.View image in fullscreenArmed security officers stand guard at the campaign’s Florida headquarters, and staff have been told to remain vigilant and alert.Events have been canceled and moved around because the Secret Service lacked the resources to safely secure them. Even with the use of glass barricades to protect Trump on stage, there are concerns about holding additional rallies outdoors due to fears about drones.Trump also now travels with a larger security footprint, with new traffic restrictions outside his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, and a line of dump trucks and big guns on display outside Trump Tower in New York when he is staying there.The Secret Service spokesperson, Anthony Guglielmi, said that Trump “is receiving heightened levels of US Secret Service protection” and that “our top priority is mitigating risks to ensure his continued safety at all times.”Leslie Osche, Butler county commissioners chair, told Pittsburgh’s Action News 4 that officials were “confident” about security at Saturday’s event.Musk has endorsedTrump for another term in the White House. On Friday, the tech billionaire also retweeted a post calling Saturday’s event “HISTORIC!” More

  • in

    Musk’s millions in rightwing gifts began earlier than previously known – report

    Elon Musk has given tens of millions of dollars to rightwing groups in recent years, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, revealing his backing for Republican groups began earlier than was previously known.Musk endorsed Trump earlier this year and has been a prolific booster of misinformation in support of the president’s re-election bid on X, the website he owns. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that Musk had said he planned to donate $45m each month to a Super Pac backing Trump (Musk has denied the report).But the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on Thursday revealed that Musk has already been spending tens of millions of dollars to back conservative causes. In 2022, he spent more than $50m to fund anti-immigrant and anti-transgender advertisements by a group called Citizens for Sanity. The group’s officers are employees of America First Legal, a non-profit led by Stephen Miller, a close former Trump aide.Musk also has donated millions to another rightwing group, Building America’s Future, Reuters reported on Thursday. The outlet reported the timeline and exact amount he has given were not clear.The group has focused on reducing Kamala Harris’s support among Black voters, according to NBC News. The group has also launched advertising criticizing Joe Biden and Harris for their support at the border.A Super Pac started by Musk, America Pac, has spent at least $71m on the presidential election, according to Bloomberg. The Trump campaign has largely outsourced its get-out-the-vote operation to the Pac.In 2023, Musk also gave $10m to support the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, in his bid for president, the Wall Street Journal reported. Musk publicly said in 2022 he would support DeSantis for president.“My preference for the 2024 presidency is someone sensible and centrist. I had hoped that would the case for the Biden administration, but have been disappointed so far,” he said at the time.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMusk’s donations to the groups were kept quiet, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal reported. He funneled money through social welfare groups that are not required to disclose their donors. People involved in his donations to Citizens for Sanity would use Signal, an encrypted messaging app, to discuss the transactions, the Wall Street Journal reported. More

  • in

    Elon Musk has gained a concerning level of power over US national security | Robert Reich

    Shortly after the apparent second assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Elon Musk wrote in a now deleted post on X, formerly known as Twitter: “And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” with an emoji of a person thinking.Musk later said his post was intended as a joke. But it could be interpreted as a call to murder Joe Biden and Kamala Harris – at least by one of Musk’s almost 200 million followers – which is presumably why the Secret Service is investigating it.Under 18 US Code Section 871, threatening a president or vice-president or inciting someone to harm them is a felony that can result in a large fine and up to five years in prison.Yet even as Musk posted a potential death threat against the sitting commander-in-chief, his multiple defense contracts with the US government have given him access to highly sensitive national security information.Musk has reportedly gained national security clearance notwithstanding his admitted use of drugs, not necessarily illegally: the tech billionaire, who says he has submitted to random drug testing at the request of the government, has smoked weed in public and also uses ketamine (for which he claims to have a prescription).Apart from the drugs, when was the last time the US government gave access to sensitive national security information to someone who posted a potential death threat against the president and vice-president?Underlying this is a broader question: when in history has one unelected individual held such sway over US national security?Musk’s SpaceX has nearly total control of the world’s satellite internet through its Starlink unit. With little regulation or oversight, Musk has already put more than 4,500 Starlink satellites into orbit around the globe, accounting for more than half of all active satellites. He plans to have as many as 42,000 satellites in orbit in the coming years.SpaceX and its Starlink system have become strategically critical to the American military. Starlink is providing connectivity to the US navy. The US space force signed a $70m contract with SpaceX late last year for military-grade low-Earth-orbit satellite capabilities. According to Reuters, the National Reconnaissance Office, which oversees US spy satellites, has a $1.8bn contract with SpaceX.This gives Musk, the richest person in the world, remarkable power. Single-handedly, he can decide to shut down a country’s access to Starlink and the internet. He also can also gain access to sensitive information gathered by Starlink. “Between, Tesla, Starlink & Twitter, I may have more real-time global economic data in one head than anyone ever,” Musk tweeted in April 2023.Meanwhile, Nasa has increasingly outsourced spaceflight projects to SpaceX, including billions in contracts for multiple moon trips and $843m to build a vehicle that will take the International Space Station out of commission.Conflicts of interest between Musk’s ventures around the world and US national security abound, and they are multiplying.When Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, Musk and SpaceX’s Starlink provided Ukraine with internet access, enabling the country to plan attacks and defend itself. (This was not a charitable move by Musk; most of the 20,000 terminals in the country were funded by outside sources such as the US government and those of the United Kingdom and Poland).But in the fall of 2022, when Ukraine entered territory contested by Russia, Musk and SpaceX abruptly severed the connectivity. Musk explained at the time: “Starlink was barred from turning on satellite beams in Crimea at the time, because doing so would violate US sanctions against Russia!”But who was Musk to decide what actions would or would not violate US sanctions?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn fact, it seems as if Musk was trying to push Ukraine to agree to Russia’s terms for ending the war.At a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, he appeared to support Putin. “He was onstage, and he said: ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace – we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’” Reid Hoffman, the co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn, recalled. Musk seemed to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker”.Soon thereafter, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, calling for referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine and grant Russia control of Crimea. In subsequent tweets, Musk portrayed a Russian victory as virtually inevitable, and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia”.US foreign policy experts also worry about the conflicts of interest posed by Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X), given his business relationships and communications with the Chinese government. China has used X for disinformation campaigns.Some are concerned that China may have leverage over Musk due to his giant Tesla factory in Shanghai, which accounts for over half of Tesla’s global deliveries and the bulk of its profits, and the battery factory he’s building there. “Elon Musk has deep financial exposure to China,” warned Mark Warner, US senator from Virginia, who chairs the Senate intelligence committee.Most of these concerns, by the way, came before Musk reactivated the accounts of conspiracy theorists and white nationalists on X and began pushing his own rightwing narrative on the platform, and before he announced his support for Trump in the upcoming election and posted a potential incitement to assassinate Biden and Harris.Elon Musk poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The sooner the US government revokes his security clearance, terminates its contracts with him and the entities he controls, and builds its own alternatives to Starlink and SpaceX, the safer America will be.

    Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His newest book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

  • in

    Elon Musk’s Twitter coup has harmed the right. They are now simply ‘too online’ | Paolo Gerbaudo

    In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s shock victory in 2016, one common explanation for why the Democrats had not seen it coming was that they had succumbed to the social media echo chamber. The fact that many digital platforms, such as Twitter (now X), tended to be dominated by liberals had lured Democrats into a false sense of security. This, so the explanation went, made them complacent, leading to inconsiderate gestures that alienated sections of the electorate: Hillary Clinton’s infamous jab at Trump’s supporters as “deplorables” was often cited as a prime example.With the internet ever more captive to the caprices of timeline algorithms, the risk of echo chambers is even greater in this election cycle. However, it is now Trump and the broader political right that is – to use the internet lingo – “too online”.The rightwing surge seen in many countries’ recent elections, especially in Europe, has been paralleled (and supported) by a significant rise of the right’s influence online. As documented by much academic research on social media and politics, the leading influencers on platforms such as YouTube, X and the instant messaging platform Telegram are rightwing. On many of these platforms, the conversation has increasingly shifted towards rightwing themes and positions, with rightwing messages tending to circulate more widely.This social media hegemony, which has been in the making for many years and was cemented by Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover, has now created a right that harbours a similar sense of delusion and complacency to the one that, in the past, has proved so detrimental for progressives.Consider the way vice-presidential candidate JD Vance has brazenly doubled down on his 2021 comment about “childless cat ladies”; or widely ridiculed – and dangerous – online hoaxes about cats and dogs being eaten by Haitian immigrants, which appear to have travelled from Facebook to the mouth of the Republican candidate in a matter of days; or Musk’s creepy rebuke concerning Taylor Swift after the pop singer endorsed Kamala Harris, offering to “give her a child”. Such extreme messaging does cater to the Maga (Make America great again) crowd of true believers – but it comes at the electoral cost of potentially alienating large swaths of the moderate voting-age population.As political scientists have long observed, a party’s rank and file is more ideologically extreme than its electorate. If leaders get trapped in the militant core, they can end up developing an unrealistic appraisal of the opinion of their target voters. This is precisely what 24/7 immersion in social media, with their plebiscitary pseudo-democracy of instant reactions and echo chambers, is all too likely to produce.Obsession with social media and its popularity contest can also lead to unwise choice of political personnel. JD Vance was appointed as running mate by Trump on the back of vocal support from Silicon Valley and the fervour of his social media followers. Yet, Vance is viewed favourably by a miserly 36% of the electorate, compared with 48% support for his opponent Tim Walz, according to a recent USA Today poll. Trump himself has been criticised by allies because of his closeness to internet personality Laura Loomer, a self-described “white advocate” who has built a successful career by catering to far-right digital cesspits.A key factor in this radicalisation spiral has been Musk’s transformation of broadly liberal Twitter into the reactionary X. Spending $44bn on the purchase certainly made no economic sense, but it seemed to make much political sense. Taking the reins of a platform widely recognised as a sort of “social media of record”, or official debating chamber of the internet, capable of shaping the news agenda and public perception, offered the opportunity to fiddle with the formation of public opinion – and this is precisely what Musk did in three waysFirst, he has shamelessly granted himself enormous algorithmic privileges, which reportedly boost his messages by a factor of 1,000. He has used this colossal power of amplification by conversing with, and therefore boosting, hard-right extremist accounts, spreading fake news and publishing AI-manufactured images, such as one showing Kamala Harris in communist attire.Second, by reactivating tens of thousands of accounts – including those of Nazis and antisemites – who had been suspended or banned for violating community guidelines, Musk has goaded liberal and left users to leave the platform out of disgust, therefore effectively shifting the balance of the conversation to the right.Third, there have been the effects of his “blue check” scheme, which has fundamentally transformed the dynamics of participation on the platform. Now, in any conversation, the top replies are from people with blue checks, who appear to be overwhelmingly right-leaning, largely because of the way more progressive users have boycotted the service out of their animosity towards Musk.Musk’s “Twitter coup” has offered a new home to those who had retreated to Maga platforms such as Truth Social and Parler. But in so doing it has also led to the creation of a macroscopic reactionary echo chamber, which feeds into the right’s confirmation bias and self-complacency.Ultimately, the reason why rightwing politicians and their billionaire allies invest so much energy and resources into social media is that these platforms can influence people’s opinions in a more organic way than traditional forms of political communication. The irony here is that in attempting to use its money and power to shift the discursive dial, the right might have inadvertently undermined its own prospects.

    Paolo Gerbaudo is a sociologist and the author of The Great Recoil: Politics after Populism and Pandemic More

  • in

    Trump says he won’t run for president again in 2028 if he loses in November

    Donald Trump said in an interview released on Sunday that he did not think he would run for president again in 2028 if he loses this year’s race for the White House.In an interview on the Full Measure television show with Sharyl Attkisson, the former US president – who ran in 2016 and 2020 – was asked whether he saw himself running yet again in four years time.“No, I don’t,” Trump answered. “I don’t see that at all.”He said: “Hopefully, we’re going to be successful.”In the polls, Kamala Harris leads Trump in most head-to-head surveys after Trump had previously established a solid lead over Joe Biden – before he scotched his re-election campaign after a disastrous debate performance. But the presidential race remains tight ahead of November’s election, especially in the key battleground states that will hold the key to victory.Attkisson asked Trump what positions he saw people such as the tech billionaire Elon Musk, the former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and the ex-independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr, holding in his administration. Trump said he had not made deals with anybody because “it’s not appropriate to do it” and “it’s too early”.Still, he laid out what Musk, Gabbard and Kennedy, who are all former Democrats or supporters of the party, could potentially work on if he were to be elected.“Bobby will do great on health and on the environment,” he said. “He looks at other countries where they don’t use chemicals, where they use much less than we use, and the people are healthier than they are in the United States, which is not that healthy a country.”Kennedy has been campaigning for Trump since he ended his own independent presidential bid to support the Republican nominee.Trump described Gabbard, a military veteran who served as a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii before retiring, as “a common sense person”. She recently said she would “be honored to serve” under a second Trump administration. Gabbard ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, but chose to support the Republican nominee in this year’s elections.During a Fox News interview, Gabbard said she was aiming for a role working on foreign policy.“I’ve known her a little bit, and it was a great honor when we got her,” Trump said in Sunday’s interview.Last month, both Gabbard and Kennedy were appointed to Trump’s transition team, which would help Trump choose policies and personnel if he were to win White House in November.Trump praised Musk as a person who can advance policies to cut costs in the federal government, an idea he has raised along with a “government efficiency commission”.“Elon is Elon,” he said. “He’s a big cost-cutter. He’s always been very good at it, and I’m good at it. But Elon, I’ll tell you what, he will go in, and he’ll say: ‘This is what you have to do. You have to do this.’ He is so into that, he feels there’s so much waste and fat in this country, and he’s right.” More

  • in

    Activist with far right ties fronts Marco Rubio-linked anti-immigration effort

    The rightwing activist Nate Hochman, who was fired last year by the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, for employing neo-Nazi imagery in a campaign video, is now the face of a Marco Rubio-linked thinktank’s efforts to spread anti-immigrant panic from Ohio to Pennsylvania.Videos featuring Hochman recorded in Charleroi, Pennsylvania, have been boosted on X by a range of rightwing figures including the platform’s owner, the tech billionaire Elon Musk.In recent days Hochman, 26, has recorded several videos on location in Charleroi for America 2100, a rightwing thinktank where he is an adviser, according to his biographies on X and at websites where he has published articles. Hochman is also a staff writer and podcaster at the rightwing website the American Spectator, where his recent output has mostly consisted of anti-immigrant messaging.Like Springfield in Ohio, Charleroi has attracted a community of Haitian migrants.The borough manager, Jim Manning, told CBS News on Wednesday that immigrants including Haitians “have been a benefit to the town”.He added: “They come here. They buy property. They open businesses. They work here. They pay taxes. So for us, at the end of the day, it has been a benefit.”At the time of reporting, Hochman had only published interviews with older white residents of the town, who have variously complained that the newcomers do not speak English and that migrants have taken “American jobs”.One interviewee appears to concede that the Haitians are in Charleroi legally but dismisses the importance of that fact.“The perception is that it’s not legal,” the interviewee says at one point. “Now, you get a lot of people saying they’re illegals and everyone wants to fight about that term, but it doesn’t really matter.”In an email sent after publication, Mike Needham, America 2100’s founder and president, pointed to an interview with a Black resident that had been published on the organization’s X account on Friday afternoon.Needham added in the same email: “Nate also recorded interviews with multiple Haitian workers in the course of his week-long investigation.” As of noon on Saturday, no interviews with Haitian immigrants had been published on the X account.Most have not been shared extensively, although one of the videos was reposted by far-right account End Wokeness, and reposted in turn by Musk to his nearly 200 million followers along with a nugget of political analysis. “Pennsylvania is a swing state,” Musk wrote. His repost was shared in turn by the America 2100 account.America 2100 is ostensibly a thinktank, launched by Needham, Rubio’s one-time chief of staff, in June 2023. Rubio is a Republican senator from Florida. Coverage of the launch presented it as a project with Rubio’s blessing, whose mission was to “begin the work of codifying and institutionalizing the ideas Rubio helped pioneer”.In July, however, Needham was also appointed as chairman of another thinktank, American Compass, which is led by a former Mitt Romney aide, Oren Cass.Cass and American Compass have drawn attention by promoting interventionist economic policies. Those policy ideas overlap with those of JD Vance: in reporting on the Needham hire, Politico called American Compass a “Vance-aligned think tank”, and Vance “an ally whose own staff has deep ties to the organization”.American Compass’s policy director, Chris Griswold, meanwhile, is another former Rubio staffer.After being dubbed “Little Marco” by Trump in a 2016 primary in which he, in turn, mocked the size of Trump’s hands, Rubio moved closer to Trump politically over the succeeding eight years, and in May even refused to commit to accepting the results of the upcoming election.At that time, Rubio was under consideration as Trump’s running mate but was eventually passed over for JD Vance.Although there was reporting on America 2100 at launch, there is little information on the site about its current personnel or the nature of the entity underlying its activities.America 2100 was registered as a non-stock corporation in Virginia in June 2023.Officers listed in filings include Needham and another former Rubio staffer, Albert Martinez, along with Lisa Lisker, a lawyer who was reportedly previously involved in an organization that spread misinformation about solar power in 12 states, and was also secretary for JD Vance’s campaign committee during his run for Senate in the 2022 election.The Guardian emailed America 2100 for comment via an email address designated for “press”, and emailed Needham and Lisker. The Guardian also contacted Rubio’s office.Only Needham responded, writing that: “I know this article will be bad-faith political hit job.”Needham added: “Nate did a great job reporting on the tragic story playing out in Charleroi.”In mid-2022, Hochman appeared poised for a high-profile career in conservative media, having been rewarded with blue ribbon fellowships and a staff job at the home of mainstream conservative opinion, National Review.His status as a representative of the emerging, harder-edged “national conservative” movement made him “the leftwing media’s go-to voice for insight into this crowd”, according to a story on rising rightwing influencers published at that time by the Dispatch, a “never Trump” conservative website.Hochman’s appearance in that story, however, was the start of his undoing.The Dispatch reported on a recording of Hochman in a Twitter spaces conversation with the white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer Nick Fuentes.In that conversation, Hochman reportedly disagreed with Fuentes on some topics, but also appeared to compliment the “America First” far-right activist, telling Fuentes: “You’ve gotten a lot of kids based, and we respect that for sure,” and “I think Nick’s probably a better influence than [the conservative commentator] Ben Shapiro on young men who might otherwise be conservatives.”Amid the furore that followed, Hochman was stripped of his fellowships. In March 2023 he left the National Review to work for DeSantis’s abortive presidential campaign. He was fired by the campaign that July, however, after he retweeted a meme-drenched pro-DeSantis video on his personal account that embraced the aesthetics of the online far right.As the Guardian reported at the time, the video portrayed “a ‘Wojak” meme, a sad-looking man popular on the right, against headlines about Trump policy failures before showing the meme cheering up to headlines about DeSantis and images of the governor at work”, all to the tune of Kate Bush’s Running Up That Hill.Then finally it superimposed DeSantis on to ranks of marching soldiers and a Sonnenrad – a Norse symbol frequently appropriated by neo-Nazis.As Hochman departed the campaign, Axios reported that Hochman had made the video, but endeavored to make it “appear as if it was produced externally”.Since then, Hochman has more fully embraced the more extreme actors of the so-called “new right”.A week ago, he published an essay at the far-right magazine IM–1776, which appeared to embed conspiratorial claims about the media in a jeremiad against democracy.Hochman claims at one point in the piece: “The US constitution was conceived to thwart tyranny; but it did so, in part, by limiting mass democracy. Once those limits were removed, power was no longer dispersed across a system of checks and balances, but centralized in the hands of whoever controlled the machinery of opinion formation.”Another recent essay published at IM–1776 characterized critics of Darryl Cooper – the “Holocaust revisionist” who recently appeared on Tucker Carlson’s webcast – as adherents of “Hitlerian Satanism”.IM–1776 also gave space for the alt-right influencer Douglass Mackey to characterize his prosecution under Klan-era election laws as the government “prosecuting people [for] posting election jokes”.The Guardian previously reported on IM–1776’s close links to the rightwing activist Christopher Rufo, who has spent much of the last week trying in vain to substantiate Donald Trump’s false claims that Haitian immigrants are eating “dogs” “cats” and “pets”.In his essay, Hochman praises Rufo, saying that he “has won an impressive string of culture war victories by actively crafting news cycles rather than responding to them”.In May, in the American Mind, Hochman began a glowing review of The Unprotected Class, a book by the Claremont Institute’s Jeremy Carl that claims America is racked by anti-white racism, with the line: “Ethnic discrimination is as old as human civilization itself,” and goes on to argue: “Racial revenge is the germ of the sustained campaign to defame, attack, and disenfranchise white Americans on behalf of their country’s most powerful institutions.” More

  • in

    White House blasts Elon Musk for X post about Biden and Harris assassination

    The White House lambasted Elon Musk for tweeting on Sunday, “Why they want to kill Donald Trump? And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” alongside an emoji face with a raised eyebrow.The president’s office issued a statement Monday that read: “Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about. This rhetoric is irresponsible.” The statement added that there should be “no place for political violence or for any violence ever in our country”.The Secret Service also said on Monday it was aware of a post by the billionaire on the X social network. Musk, who owns the platform, formerly known as Twitter, made the post after a man suspected of apparently planning to assassinate Donald Trump at his golf course in West Palm Beach was arrested on Sunday.Musk, himself a Trump supporter, was quickly criticized by X users from the left and right, who said they were concerned his words to his nearly 200m X followers could incite violence against Biden and Harris.The tech billionaire deleted the post but not before the Secret Service, tasked with protecting current and former presidents, vice-presidents and other notable officials, took notice.“The Secret Service is aware of the social media post made by Elon Musk and as a matter of practice, we do not comment on matters involving protective intelligence,” a spokesperson said in an email. “We can say, however, that the Secret Service investigates all threats related to our protectees.”The spokesperson declined to specify whether the agency had reached out to Musk, who seemed to suggest in follow-up posts that he had been making a joke.“Well, one lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on X,” he later wrote. “Turns out that jokes are WAY less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is plain text.”Harris, a Democrat running against the Republican nominee Trump in the 2024 election, and Biden both issued statements on Sunday night expressing relief that Trump had not been harmed. More

  • in

    Should we take Elon Musk’s and Taylor Swift’s political endorsements seriously? | Siva Vaidhyanathan

    What should we make of the fact that the richest person in the world has joined forces with Donald Trump and promises now to serve the United States as some sort of czar of government “efficiency”? And what should we make of the world’s biggest pop star endorsing Kamala Harris for president?Why should it matter that these mega-celebrities tell us what they want from politics and government?The morning after Taylor Swift endorsed Harris for president, Elon Musk defended his new buddy, Trump, in the most disturbing and bizarre fashion, referring to the Republican obsession with women who have chosen not to have children and have cats. “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life,” Musk, who has impregnated at least one of his employees and has reportedly propositioned others, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.Swift, in contrast, has declared over the past four years that she cares deeply about women’s issues and has motivated her followers around the world to register to vote and get active in politics. Her engagement has been serious and sincere. Swift, more than any other celebrity, has the opportunity to assume the role of the champion of democracy in America. She writes and sings about the personal yet connects the personal to the political through the descriptions of power and mistreatment in relationships. To many, the connections between power imbalances and mistreatment in personal relationships and those in society at large are strong yet implicit. Swift has moved in recent years to make them explicit.So Swift’s endorsement is not so much about swaying undecided voters through her charisma. That’s a myth. Rather her endorsement is about harnessing all the activist energy she has been building over the years and focusing it on getting young people registered to vote and willing to volunteer for a cause. She is expanding the electorate and infusing it with optimism and purpose. That’s a blessing to anyone who cares about the fate of democracy in the United States.In stark contrast, the other billionaire in this spat has done everything he can to undermine belief in government by the people and for the people. His long hostility to safety and securities regulation makes sense, given his role as a corporate leader. His deep-seated racism and sexism have become even more vocal since he found common cause with Trump and other Republicans. Musk wants a smaller set of political actors in the world. They should be his buddies, all men, and all who assume they know what’s best for the world. It does not help that he is neither smart nor serious about policy nor politics.Yet the nominee of one of the two major American political parties has declared he wants Musk to assume a powerful role in the next government. We could approach this question by examining Musk’s record as a corporate leader, which is spotty at best. We could address Musk’s habits of exaggeration and prevarication, which are significant. We could wonder how a person who is supposed to be running five companies already might have the time to also head up a major government initiative.Or we could just conclude that neither Musk nor Trump are serious people with any idea how to execute policy, let alone devote time, energy and thought to the process. That’s not a reason to suspend concern about this partnership. Musk’s threats to the United States go far beyond any potential office he might hold in the future.Policy is not for amateurs. We learned this the hard way during the first Trump administration, when the few veteran policymakers who were willing to keep the government operating were one by one pushed out of power by Trump or his cronies.To change the way any federal government office operates, one must generate a feasible proposal and seek affirmation and criticism from stakeholders. Those stakeholders might include corporations and their lobbyists, unions and their lobbyists, and public interest groups that range from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club. They also include elements of the executive branch who might have to implement that policy. And, of course, plenty of lawyers and economists must weigh in. Often, if generated by an office of the executive branch, the public must be invited to submit comments on a draft of a policy statement.And, once all of that happens, policy changes are subject to court scrutiny if an interested party decides to sue over it. In other words, it takes a long time and a lot of effort to change even small things that the government does. It takes skill, knowledge, diligence and a whole lot of patience to enact policy.It’s not work appropriate for the flippant, unserious or easily distracted.Now, that’s how it’s done in normal times. We can assume that normal times would come to a permanent end in the United States if 78-year-old Donald Trump takes the oath of office again on 20 January 2025. He has promised radical change in the basic workings of government, down to promising to ignore or “terminate” the constitution if he does not get his way.How he would do this is unclear. We can assume that he would have some elements willing to use force to wrest control of the government away from processes and the limits of law. And we know that Trump has managed to turn the federal courts into instruments of his own interests. All of that would take work, of course. The only thing that saved the government from complete breakdown during Trump’s term in office was his inability to focus and follow through on his indignation and ambition. The friction of bureaucracy turned out to be one of the last bastions holding up the fragile republic.The best Trump can hope to accomplish is chaos and breakdown along with massive corruption that would flow as the failsafes of oversight and accountability collapse.That’s what makes the whole Musk partnership so absurd. Assume for a moment that Musk were a serious, committed, competent leader and manager. Under the Trump style of administration, what possibility would there be for him to discipline a sprawling federal agency such as the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Defense?It would not matter. Again, it’s folly to take this effort seriously as an effort to do what Trump or Musk say it would do. Musk, like Trump, is only interested in how any effort could smooth the way for his own benefit. Over the past decade or more, Musk has found his various companies, especially Tesla, entangled with regulators over issues ranging from safety to securities violations.His leadership of SpaceX and its subsidiary Starlink, which provides satellite internet access to many millions of people around the world including essential elements of the military and government of Ukraine, has come under scrutiny as Musk has grown closer to the Russian view of the invasion of Ukraine. SpaceX is a major defense contractor. The United States government already depends on SpaceX way too much, and SpaceX depends on the United States government for much of its revenue.Having Musk involved at the highest levels of a government that is supposed to be curbing his excesses and protecting the public interest from the worst externalities of his companies is beyond a conflict of interest. It’s naked corruption. And that is the point. It’s positively Putinesque.Musk is, of course, unlikely to even assume such an office or hold a meeting if he did. He does not have the ability to focus these days. His incessant tweeting at all hours is increasingly unhinged from reality. His drug use, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, has reached a concerning level at which investors in Tesla are worried about his ability to protect their interests. He seems not to be putting in the time to do his current jobs well, even the one at Tesla that supplies him with most of his wealth.Musk’s closeness to Trump is itself a cause for concern. Even without Musk in office, Trump would probably order his cronies to suspend regulatory scrutiny of SpaceX and Tesla. Musk depends on the goodwill of the Xi regime in China to keep parts flowing for Tesla and to keep China open as a market for the cars. Musk needs the new extremely rightwing government of Argentina to remain friendly to the United States to maintain access to new lithium mines for Tesla batteries. And Musk infamously owes the Saudi royal family for funding his disastrous purchase of Twitter.This level of entanglement with troublesome and oppressive foreign governments makes Musk a security risk to the United States whether inside or outside government, whether Trump or Harris runs the government.The choice for America’s future could not be starker, especially when we contrast the roles, goals and personalities of the two highest-profile celebrities active this fall. Swift offers a serious and sincere opportunity for engagement. Musk offers snark and selfishness. Yet for some reason, too many people consider Musk, with his wealth, worthy of pontification on matters of public policy. Maybe it’s time we took Swift and her followers more seriously. The future is theirs.

    Siva Vaidhyanathan is a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia and the author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy More