Technology

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      They hoped their children’s deaths would bring change. Then a Colorado bill to protect kids online failed

      by

      Bereaved parents saw their hopes for change dashed after a bill meant to protect children from sexual predators and drug dealers online died in the Colorado state legislature last month.Several of those parents had helped shape the bill, including Lori Schott, whose 18-year-old daughter Annalee died by suicide in 2020 after consuming content on TikTok and Instagram about depression, anxiety and suicide.“When the legislators failed to vote and pushed it off onto some fake calendar date where they’re not even in session, to not even have accountability for where they stand – as a parent, it’s a slap in the face,” said Schott, who identifies as a pro-second amendment Republican. “It’s a slap in the face of my daughter, and to other kids that we’ve lost.”Had the legislation passed, it would have required social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to investigate and take down accounts engaged in gun or drug sales or in the sexual exploitation or trafficking of minors. It also mandated the creation of direct hotlines to tech company personnel for law enforcement and a 72-hour response window for police requests, a higher burden than under current law.Additionally, platforms would have had to report on how many minors used their services, how often they did so, for how long and how much those young users engaged with content that violated company policies. Several big tech firms registered official positions on the bill. According to Colorado lobbying disclosures, Meta’s longtime in-state lobby firm, Headwater Strategies, is registered as a proponent for changing the bill. Google and TikTok also hired lobbyists to oppose it.View image in fullscreen“We’re just extremely disappointed,” said Kim Osterman, whose 18-year-old son Max died in 2021 after purchasing drugs spiked with fentanyl from a dealer he met on Snapchat. “[Legislators] chose big tech over protecting children and families.”Colorado legislators agree to hold social media companies responsible for protecting childrenProtections for users of social media (SB 25-086) passed both chambers before being vetoed on 24 April by governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, who cited the bill’s potential to “erode privacy, freedom and innovation” as reasons for his veto. Colorado’s senate voted to override the veto on 25 April, yet those efforts fell apart on 28 April when the state house opted to delay the vote until after the legislative session ended, effectively blocking an override and keeping the bill alive.The bill originally passed the senate by a 29-6 vote and the house by a 46-18 margin. On 25 April, the senate voted 29-6 to override Polis’s veto. Lawmakers anticipated that the house would take up the override later that day. At the time, according to those interviewed, there appeared to be enough bipartisan support to successfully overturn his veto.“It was an easy vote for folks because of what we were voting on: protecting kids from social media companies,” said the senator Lindsey Daugherty, a Democrat and a co-sponsor of the bill. She said she urged house leadership to hold the vote Friday, but they declined: “The speaker knew the governor didn’t want us to do it on Friday, because they knew we would win.”The parents who advocated for the bill attribute its failure to an unexpected, 11th-hour lobbying campaign by a far-right gun owners’ association in Colorado. Two state legislators as well as seven people involved in the legislative process echoed the parents’ claims.An abnormal, last-minute campaign disrupts bipartisan consensusRocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) cast the bill as an instrument of government censorship in texts and emails over the legislation’s provisions against “ghost guns”, untraceable weapons assembled from kits purchased online, which would have been prohibited.RMGO launched massive social media and email campaigns urging its 200,000 members to contact their legislators to demand they vote against the bill. A source with knowledge of the workings of the Colorado state house described the gun group’s social media and text campaigns, encouraging Republicans voters to contact their legislators to demand opposition to the bill, as incessant.“[Legislators] were getting countless calls and emails and being yelled at by activists. It was a full-fledged attack. There was a whole campaign saying: ‘This is a government censorship bill,’” they said.The group’s actions were instrumental in a campaign to deter house Republicans from voting against the veto, resulting in the quashing of the bill, and unexpected from an organization that had been facing funding shortfalls, according to 10 people interviewed who were involved in the design of the bill and legislative process. Sources in the Colorado state house spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal from RMGO.The house had delayed the vote until 28 April, which allowed RMGO time to launch a campaign against the bill over the weekend. When lawmakers reconvened Monday, the house voted 51-13 to postpone the override until after the legislative session ended – effectively killing the effort.View image in fullscreenThe gun activists’ mass text message campaign to registered Republican voters asserted the social media bill would constitute an attempt to “compel social media companies to conduct mass surveillance of content posted on their platforms” to search for violations of Colorado’s gun laws, describing the bill as an attack on first and second amendment rights, according to texts seen by the Guardian.A familiar, aggressive foeFounded in 1996, RMGO claims to have a membership of more than 200,000 activists. It is recognized as a far-right group that takes a “no-compromise” stance on gun rights. Dudley Brown, its founder and leader, also serves as the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, which positions itself further to the right than the National Rifle Association (NRA). RMGO has mounted criticism against the NRA for being too moderate and politically compromising. Critics have described RMGO as “bullies” and “extremists” because of its combative tactics, which include targeting and smearing Democrats and moderate Republicans. The group did not respond to requests for comment on its legislative efforts.RMGO is a well-known presence at the Colorado capitol, typically opposing gun-control legislation. Daugherty described its typical campaign tactics as “scary”. She got rid of her X account after being singled out by the group over her work on a bill to ban assault weapons earlier this year.“When we were running any of the gun bills at the capitol, they put my and some other legislators’ faces on their websites,” she said. A screenshot of a tweet from RMGO showed Daugherty with a red “traitor” stamp on her forehead.The group’s campaign resulted in the spread of misinformation about the bill’s impact on gun ownership rights, sources involved in the legislative process said.“The reason I was in support of the bill, and in support of the override, was it has to do with child trafficking and protecting the kids,” said the senator Rod Pelton, a Republican, who voted in favor of the veto override in the senate. “I just didn’t really buy into the whole second amendment argument.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe bill had enjoyed the backing of all 23 of Colorado’s district attorneys as well as bipartisan state house support.RMGO’s late-stage opposition to the social media bill marked a break from its usual playbook. The group generally weighs in on legislation earlier in the process, according to eight sources, including two of the bill’s co-sponsors, Daugherty and the representative Andy Boesenecker.“They really ramped up their efforts,” Boesenecker said. “It was curious to me that their opposition came in very late and appeared to be very well funded at the end.”In recent years, RMGO group had been less active due to well-documented money problems that limited its ability to campaign on legislative issues. In a 2024 interview, the group’s leaders stated plainly that it struggled with funding. Daugherty believes RMGO would not have been able to embark on such an apparently costly outreach campaign without a major infusion of cash. A major text campaign like the one launched for SB-86 was beyond their financial capacity, she said. Others in Colorado politics agreed.“Rocky Mountain Gun Owners have not been important or effective in probably at least four years in the legislature. They’ve had no money, and then all of a sudden they had tons of money, funding their rise back into power,” said Dawn Reinfeld, executive director of Blue Rising Together, a Colorado-based non-profit focused on youth rights.The campaign made legislators feel threatened, with primary elections in their districts over the weekend, Daugherty said, particularly after accounts on X, formerly Twitter, bombarded the bill’s supporters.View image in fullscreen“Folks were worried about being primaried, mostly the Republicans, and that’s kind of what it came down to,” Daugherty said.Aaron Ping’s 16-year-old son Avery died of an overdose in December after buying what he thought was ecstasy over Snapchat and receiving instead a substance laced with fentanyl. Ping saw the campaign against the bill as an intentional misconstrual of its intent.“It was looking like the bill was going to pass, until all this misinformation about it taking away people’s gun rights because it addresses people buying illegal shadow guns off the internet,” he said.Ping gave testimony in support of the bill in February before the first senate vote, alongside other bereaved parents, teens in recovery and a district attorney.“The bill gave me hope that Avery’s legacy would be to help. So when it didn’t pass, it was pretty soul-crushing,” said Ping.States take up online child-safety bills as federal lawmakers falterSeveral states, including California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, South Carolina and Nevada, have introduced legislation aimed at improving online safety for children in the past two years. These efforts have faced strong resistance from the tech industry, including heavy lobbying and lawsuits.Maryland became the first state to successfully pass a Kids Code bill, signing it into law in May 2024. But the victory may be short-lived: NetChoice, a tech industry coalition representing companies including Meta, Google and Amazon, quickly launched a legal challenge against the measure, which is ongoing.Meanwhile, in the US federal government, the kids online safety act (Kosa), which had wound its way through the legislature for years, died in February when it failed to pass in the House after years of markups and votes. A revamped version of the bill was reintroduced to Congress on 14 May.In California, a similar bill known as the age-appropriate design code act, modeled after UK legislation, was blocked in late 2023. A federal judge granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction, citing potential violations of the first amendment, which stopped the law from going into effect. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Will the Trump-Musk rift really change anything? | Jan-Werner Müller

      by

      Thinking about the constant stream of news about Elon Musk, one is tempted to adapt two of the most famous sentences from American literature. William Faulkner wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” What comes to mind about Musk is: “He is not gone forever. He has not even left.”It is profoundly misleading to frame Musk’s departure this past week as “disappointed reformer quits after finding it impossible to make bureaucracy efficient”, just as it is wrong to think of this week’s rift as “Trump regime changes direction”. After all, Musk’s people are still there; and Musk-ism – understood as the wanton destruction of state capacity and cruel attacks on the poorest – will continue on … what’s the drug appropriate to mention here? Steroids? Not least, Trump’s and Musk’s fates remain entwined.Plenty of personnel beholden to Musk are still around and doubling down on their chainsaw massacre. Continuing deregulation is still very much to Musk’s and other oligarchs’ liking. There is no dearth of bizarre Musk pronouncements about the universe, but his claim that the Doge ethos is like Buddhism must be somewhere near the top. Yet it reveals a truth: the mentality of blissfully destroying state capacity will persist, except that the practice is likely to become more systematic and less prone to PR statements about “savings” that can easily be debunked. Russell Vought, who directs the office of management and budget, knows what he is doing and has long been preparing to use “executive tools” creatively – read: illegally, according to plenty of constitutional lawyers. The level of cruelty is not much different from Musk’s “feeding USAID into the wood chipper”, but the process may well become smoother and less visible.After all, Musk’s own criticism of the budget is that it did not cut enough. The most sycophantic members of the Trump cult – such as the representative Andy Ogles – say the same: the bill is “not beautiful yet”; only senators making further cuts can make it so. As one of the world’s most influential political scientists, Adam Przeworski, has pointed out, budgets like this do not get passed under democratic conditions unless there is a major crisis (juntas in Chile and Argentina could make cuts of a similar magnitude with impunity). The potential damage to low-income families – not to speak of science – is so enormous that Reagan and Thatcher look like democratic socialists by comparison.The Trump-Musk rift will reveal much about what kind of regime the Trumpists are really creating, and how far governing as a form of personal revenge might be pushed. In principle, mutual vulnerability remains. Trump still has reasons to welcome help from Musk’s platform – and his money. The US is relying on SpaceX and Starlink in ways that give Musk leverage. Conversely, though, no matter how big the platform, a state can always pull the plug through regulation. Most important, Musk and Trump might know things about one another that should not become public.This, after all, is the underlying logic of what the Hungarian sociologist Bálint Magyar has theorized as a “mafia state”. In such a state, benefits go to what Magyar calls a “political family” (in Trump’s case, it of course includes the biological family); but in return there has to be absolute loyalty and omertà. A mafia state resembles Hotel California: you can officially check out, but you can never leave.This does not mean that nobody ever tries. Yet in conflicts between autocrats and a defecting oligarch, the latter tends to lose. Putin subjugated oligarchs who showed streaks of independence; Orbán defeated his former ally Lajos Simicska. When the latter broke with the Hungarian prime minister in 2015, opposition figures were giddy with excitement about juicy revelations and regime infighting. But financing big PR campaigns about corruption and an anti-Orbán party, as well as a large media empire, were not enough; today, the former oligarch concentrates on farming in western Hungary.Many commentators have called for inflicting reputational damage on Musk. It clearly has been an advantage for those willing to protest the Trump regime that Tesla provided a focal point for concrete action; it is much more difficult to rally against cabinet members who do not happen to have a dealership down the road, but rather abstract things like hedge funds.More important still are investigations, starting with the simple – but still unanswered – questions about who actually runs Doge, how it is structured and on what legal basis its actions proceed (the fact that the chair of the Doge caucus in the House keeps touting the entity’s commitment to “turning transparency into action” only adds insult to injury). If Congress ever rediscovers Article 1 of the constitution, and its duties of oversight in particular, it should not just hold hearings, but produce an analytical record of how an individual – unelected and supposedly without holding any office – could simply be handed a chainsaw and a key to all our data (a golden key was indeed a fitting gift from Trump). It will be difficult – in some cases, impossible – to undo the damage Musk and allies have caused; it will take less effort to dismantle the myth of “if only a business genius ran government, all would be well”. After all, evidence of how things turned out will be there.

      Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court rules Doge can access social security data during legal challenge

      by

      The US supreme court on Friday permitted the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), a key player in Donald Trump’s drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to the personal information of millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out.At the request of the justice department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based US district judge Ellen Hollander’s order that had largely blocked Doge’s access to “personally identifiable information” in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing Doge unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law.The court’s brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with Doge. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented.Doge swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president’s effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on 30 May.Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop Doge from accessing sensitive data at the SSA, including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records.The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients, including retirees and disabled Americans.In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the SSA had been “ransacked” and that Doge members had been installed without proper vetting or training and had demanded access to some of the agency’s most sensitive data systems.Hollander in a 17 April ruling found that Doge had failed to explain why its stated mission required “unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA’s entire data systems”.“For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,” Hollander wrote. “This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.”Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited Doge staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with narrow exceptions. The judge’s ruling did allow Doge affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks.Hollander also ordered Doge affiliates to “disgorge and delete” any personal information already in their possession.Based in Richmond, Virginia, the fourth US circuit court of appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on 30 April to pause Hollander’s block on Doge’s unlimited access to SSA records.Justice department lawyers in their supreme court filing characterized Hollander’s order as judicial overreach.“The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court’s judgment, those employees do not ‘need’ such access,” they wrote.The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which a fourth circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow Doge to access data at the US treasury and education departments and the office of personnel management.In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against Doge wrote that the case involving social security data was “substantially stronger” with “vastly greater stakes”, citing “detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records”, such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump v Musk: 10 ways they can further hurt each other

      by

      The falling-out between the world’s richest person and the president of the world’s largest economy will have consequences – for both of them.Elon Musk, as the boss of multiple companies including Tesla, and Donald Trump, who has benefited from Musk’s support in his journey to the White House, have had a mutually beneficial relationship up until now.Here are 10 ways in which Musk and Trump could hurt each other if they fail to broker a peace deal.What Trump could do to MuskCancel government contracts related to Musk’s businessesResponding to Musk’s criticism of his tax and spending bill, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that cancelling the billionaire’s government contracts would be a straightforward way to save money.“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!” Trump said.In 2024, the New York Times reported that Musk’s companies – which include electric vehicle maker Tesla and rocket company SpaceX – have over the past year been promised $3bn across nearly 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies.Investigate Musk’s alleged drug useThe New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have made allegations of heavy drug use by Musk, raising questions about Nasa requirements for its contractors – including SpaceX – to maintain a drug-free workforce. The Times alleged that Musk has received advanced warning of the tests. SpaceX has been contacted for comment.Responding to the Times allegations on X last month, Musk wrote: “to be clear, I am NOT taking drugs!” In 2024 he said he sometimes used ketamine on a doctor’s prescription.Challenge Musk’s immigration statusSteve Bannon, a Trump ally and influential “alt-right” figure, told the Times on Thursday that Musk’s immigration status should be investigated.“They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said of South Africa-born Musk, who is a US citizen.Use general presidential powers against MuskWhen Trump was elected, observers pointed to the myriad ways in which a Musk-friendly White House administration could benefit the financial interests of the world’s richest person. That benign environment, which includes awarding of government contracts and directing federal agencies giving Musk’s businesses an easier ride, could of course be turned hostile.Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in government regulation, told the Guardian at the time: “All federal regulators and prosecutors work for the president. He can tell them to do something or not to do something with the understanding that he will fire them if they disobey.”Ostracise Musk from the Maga movementTrump, as the leader of the “Make America great again” vanguard, can close doors on Musk. The Republican congressman Troy Nehls excoriated the billionaire on Thursday, telling him: ““You’ve lost your damn mind.” He added: “Enough is enough.”Musk can handle such opprobrium and, given his considerable wealth, he is an important source of funding for Republican politicians.What Musk could do to TrumpTurn X against the White HouseMusk used his X platform, and his more than 220 million followers on it, to rally support for Trump’s victory in the 2024. It also provided a platform for rightwing views that helped publicise the Maga agenda.Theoretically, Musk could at least use his own X account to criticise Trump with as much regularity as he pumped the president’s policies (the Tesla chief executive is a prolific user of his own platform).However, this also depends on Musk’s influence with the US electorate. Five out of 10 US adults say they have an unfavourable view of Musk, according to the Pew Research Center. But it should be noted that seven out of 10 Republicans or Republican-leaning adults hold a favourable view – he’s not going to sway many Democrats who dislike Trump anyway.Form a new political movementMusk, who is worth more than $300bn (£220bn), could divert his considerable financial resources away from the Republican party and start a new political entity. Musk spent $250m on getting Trump elected in 2024, signalling his willingness to invest heavily in politics.On Thursday he posted a poll on X and asked: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” More than 80% of the 4.8 million respondents voted “yes”.Create geopolitical problems with his businessesThe Starlink satellite broadband platform, owned by Musk’s SpaceX, is playing a key rule in Ukraine’s fight against a Russian invasion, while China is an important manufacturing and consumer base for Tesla. Through his businesses, Musk also has political contacts around the world and is regularly photographed in the company of global leaders. However, any damage Musk causes to Trump’s international standing or interests will have to be balanced with any knock-on effect on his own businesses.Create problems for NasaNasa has a close relationship with Musk’s SpaceX, with the company’s Dragon spacecraft being used to transport the agency’s astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Musk immediately pledged to decommission Dragon in the wake of the Trump spat on Thursday – before quickly signalling an about-face. Nonetheless, SpaceX is a crucial part of Nasa’s ISS operations.Tell-all on TrumpMusk has been a fixture of Trump’s inner circle for a considerable period of time and, as the contents of his X account show, he is capable of taking multiple damaging swipes at people. However, members of Trump’s inner circle will have had the same access to Musk, whose personal life is becoming a media staple. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk signals he may back down in public row with Donald Trump

      by

      Elon Musk has suggested he may de-escalate his public row with Donald Trump after their spectacular falling out.The Tesla chief executive signalled he might back down on a pledge to decommission the Dragon spacecraft – made by his SpaceX business – in an exchange on his X social media platform. He also responded positively to a call from fellow multibillionaire Bill Ackman to “make peace” with the US president.Politico also reported overnight that the White House has scheduled a call with Musk on Friday to broker a peace deal after both men traded verbal blows on Thursday.The rolling spat – which played out over social media and in a Trump White House appearance – included the president saying he was “very disappointed in Elon” over Musk’s criticism of his tax and spending bill. Musk also said the president’s trade policies would cause a recession and raised Trump’s connections to the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Musk had responded to a Trump threat to cancel his US government contracts on Thursday with a post on X stating he would retire his Dragon spacecraft, which is used by Nasa. However, responding to an X user’s post urging both sides to “cool off”, Musk wrote: “Good advice. Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”Musk also appeared to proffer an olive branch in a reply to a post from the hedge fund owner Ackman, who called on Trump and Musk to “make peace for the benefit of our great country”. Musk replied: “You’re not wrong.”Politico also reported a potential peace call between Musk and the White House, claiming Trump’s aides had worked to persuade the president to tone down his public criticism of the Tesla owner before arranging the phone conversation for Friday.After a brief interview with Trump about Thursday’s Musk implosion, Politico reported that the president displayed “an air of nonchalance” about the spat. “Oh it’s OK” Trump said, when asked about the dispute. “It’s going very well, never done better.” Referring to his favourability ratings, Trump added: “The numbers are through the roof, the highest polls I’ve ever had and I have to go.”Politico reported that Trump’s aides had urged the president to focus on getting his tax and spending bill through the Senate instead of clashing with Musk, with one of his Truth Social posts reflecting a less confrontational tone. “I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform, before adding that the tax cut legislation was one of the “Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress”. More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump v Musk: the two worst people in the world are finally having a big, beautiful breakup | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      If you paid attention during physics class you will remember the third law of ego-dynamics. Namely: when two egos of equal mass occupy the same orbit, the system will eventually become unstable, resulting in an explosive separation and some very nasty tweets.To see this theory in action please have a gander at the dramatic collapse of the Donald Trump and Elon Musk bromance. The news has been a nonstop horror show for what feels like forever. Watching two of the very worst people in the world direct their nastiness at each other is extremely cathartic.While I won’t contain my glee, I will collect myself long enough to go over the backstory. First, as you know, Musk spent $277m to help get Trump elected. If this happened somewhere else we would call it corruption and the US might invade the country to install democracy. But this is the US we’re talking about, so it was fine.After Musk donated all those quids, Trump provided the quo. Musk got his Doge gig, through which he weakened all the agencies that were regulating his businesses in the name of saving the US a load of money.This is the point where things started to go wrong and Musk’s reputation started to tank. Over the years the billionaire had managed to convince a depressingly large number of people that he was some sort of genius rocket man with anti-establishment views. Once he became part of the establishment, however, and started slashing federal jobs, a lot of people started to get annoyed with how much influence he had over their lives.Musk may be a space cadet but even he could see how much he was destroying his brand. It didn’t help, of course, that Tesla shares were dropping.So a week ago he did the sensible thing and announced that he was leaving his role with the Trump administration. Rather more interestingly, however, the “first buddy” publicly criticized Trump’s marquee tax bill. Whispers of a rift between Musk and Trump started circulating.At first when Musk parted ways with the Trump administration I thought the public divorce might be smoke and mirrors: a mutually beneficial PR exercise. Trump got rid of a creepy weirdo who nobody liked and kept causing him problems. Musk got to show his worried investors that he was putting all his energy back into the companies he’s supposed to be running. Rumours of a fallout, I thought, were greatly exaggerated.On Thursday, however, things escalated to the point where I don’t think this fallout can possibly be manufactured or exaggerated.Thursday afternoon, you see, is when the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein entered the chat. Writing on the social network he spent billions buying, Musk tweeted: “Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” To be extra messy he added: “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.”It’s worth noting that Musk, a man who reportedly foists his sperm on every woman of a certain age that he meets, has a well-documented history of calling other people sex offenders. The self-sabotage probably started when he called the British cave explorer Vernon Unsworth a “pedo guy” in 2018, without any justification, after Unsworth helped rescue 12 boys trapped in a Thai cave. Musk, in case you had forgotten, had made a lot of noise about how he was going to rescue the kids with a very special little submarine. He did not, in fact, rescue any children and Unsworth hurt the billionaire’s feelings when he suggested Musk “stick his submarine where it hurts”.Still, while Musk does not think before he tweets, this seems a tad reckless even for him. It certainly goes well beyond the bounds of “manufactured PR brawl” and enters “burning bridges” territory. And, of course, having been in bed with the guy you’ve just implied was in Epstein’s circle doesn’t exactly make you look good does it?As well as tweeting about Epstein, Musk also said Trump would have “lost the election” if he hadn’t intervened with his hundreds of millions. Musk also suggested that he might start a new political party.Trump, meanwhile, hasn’t exactly been holding his tongue. He called Musk “crazy” and threatened to cut off government contracts with the billionaire’s companies.So is this the end of a big, beautiful friendship? Is it, as conspiracy theorist and Trump ally Laura Loomer put it: “a Big beautiful breakup”?While it feels like it, we should remember that Trump has kissed and made up with his haters before. While the president has very thin skin (all that bronzer can wreak havoc on the epidermis), he’s also a pragmatist.Just look at “Little Marco” AKA Marco Rubio AKA the secretary of state. Before the 2016 election, Rubio described Trump as a “con artist” and suggested he had bladder issues. Trump, meanwhile, called Rubio a “nervous basket case” who was the sweatiest person he’d ever met. “It’s disgusting,” he said. “We need somebody that doesn’t have whatever it is that he’s got.” Various other barbs were exchanged but, almost a decade on, all seems to be forgiven. The two men are now as thick as thieves.It’s also possible that, as a simple woman, I can’t comprehend the testosterone-infused intricacies of what’s going on with Musk and Trump. Conservative commentator Jack Posobiec helpfully tweeted: “Some of y’all cant handle 2 high agency males going at it and it really shows. This is direct communication (phallocentric) vs indirect communication (gynocentric).”Still, while there may eventually be some sort of reconciliation, I for one am enjoying the drama. I think we all are. Well, maybe not Kanye West AKA Ye. On Thursday the disgraced rapper tweeted: “Brooooos please nooooo […] We love you both so much.” As Musk might say himself: bet you did Nazi that coming. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Musk calls for Trump to be impeached as extraordinary feud escalates

      by

      Elon Musk called for Donald Trump to be impeached after mocking his connections to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as the president threatened to cancel federal contracts and tax subsidies for Musk’s companies in an extraordinary social media feud on Thursday.The deterioration of their once close relationship into bitter acrimony came over the course of several remarkable hours during which the president and the world’s richest man hurled deeply personal insults over matters significant and insignificant.In the most churlish moment of the astonishing saga, Musk said on X the reason the Trump administration had not released the files into Epstein was because they implicated the president. He later quote-tweeted a post calling for Trump to be removed and said Trump’s tariffs would cause a recession.“Time to drop the really big bomb: Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” Musk wrote, after Trump threatened to cut subsidies for Musk’s companies as it would save “billions”.The direct shots at Trump were the latest twist in the public feud over a Republican spending bill that Musk had criticized. Trump and Musk had been careful not to hit each other directly, but the pair discarded restraint as it escalated online.The bizarre drama served to underscore the degree to which Trump and Musk’s relationship has been one of mutual convenience, despite the White House claiming for months that they were simply ideologically aligned.It also caused the rightwing writer Ashley St Clair, who gave birth to Musk’s 14th known child and sued Musk for child support, to weigh in. “Let me know if u need any breakup advice,” she posted on X, tagging Trump.Shares in Tesla, Musk’s electronic vehicle company, fell almost 15% on Thursday afternoon with the decline timed to when Trump’s remarks began. Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, is not publicly traded, but competitors to SpaceX rose on the news.For weeks, Musk has complained about the budget bill, and used the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimating the bill would add $2.4tn to the deficit over the next decade as an opening to condemn the legislation as a “disgusting abomination”.On Thursday, Trump appeared to finally have had enough of Musk’s complaints. Speaking in the Oval Office as the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, looked on in bemusement, Trump mocked Musk’s recent black eye and questioned why he didn’t cover it up.“You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk. Even with a black eye. I said, do you want a little makeup? He said, no, I don’t think so. Which is interesting,” Trump said. “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will any more.”Trump then ratcheted up his barbs against Musk, accusing him of turning against the bill solely out of self-interest, as the bill did not benefit Tesla, Musk’s electronic vehicle company. Trump also pulled the nomination of Musk’s preferred candidate to lead Nasa.“I’m very disappointed with Elon,” Trump said. “He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out we’re going to cut the EV mandate.”Musk then went on the warpath.Within minutes of Trump’s comments appearing in a clip on X, where Musk was responding in real time, Musk accused the president of lying about the bill, and accused Trump of being ungrateful for the millions he spent to get him elected.“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk said in a post on X. He added: “Such ingratitude.”Musk taking credit for Trump’s election win initially threatened to be the touchpoint for their relationship, given Trump had made a point to say that Musk’s contributions had no effect on him winning the battleground state of Pennsylvania.But then Trump posted on Truth Social that he had fired Musk from his role as a special adviser because he was “wearing thin” at the White House, and Musk responded: “Such an obvious lie. So sad.”It was less than a half an hour later that Musk fired off his Epstein tweet, in effect accusing him of being part of an alleged child sexual abuse ring linked to Epstein, using a dog whistle for the Maga movement to try to set them against the president.In doing so, Musk ignored his own connections to Epstein. In 2014, like Trump, Musk was photographed at a party with Ghislaine Maxwell, a former Epstein girlfriend who was convicted in 2021 on charges that she helped the financier’s sex-trafficking activities.The public feud comes after a remarkable partnership that lasted longer than many Democrats on Capitol Hill and in Trump’s orbit predicted.Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Trump’s re-election campaign through his specially created America Pac, which shouldered a large portion of Trump’s door-knocking campaign, although the actual impact of that ground-game effort is unclear. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Musk’s spectacular bust-up – podcast

      by

      Archive: Fox News, CBS News, CNBC, Associated Press, ABC 7 Chicago, NBC
      Listen to Today in Focus’s episode about Musk city
      Subscribe to the Guardian’s new narrative series Missing in the Amazon
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian. Go to theguardian.com/politcspodus More