Tag: elon musk

Bakari Sellers Calls Elon Musk a White Supremacist, and All Hell Breaks Loose

A CNN panel meant to discuss extraordinary wealth lurched far off the rails Friday night when one commentator went into full-on slander mode on Elon Musk, who became the world’s first trillionaire this week. He’s been getting attacked from the left for his success because that’s what the left does.

Well, that and fantasize about spending other people’s money, which is exactly what CNN contributor Cari Champion started with.

“If you spent a million dollars every single day, it would take you more than 2700 years to spend a trillion dollars,” Champion said. “What you could effectively do with a trillion dollars is get rid of global poverty. You could end world hunger, you could cure major diseases like malaria, and you could completely transition the global energy sector to renewables. The fact that he has this type of money only tells me that his power will be more prevalent and that I could not — I cannot guarantee someone like this man would use his power for good.”

Then Bakari Sellers took things further. After blaming Elon Musk’s influence for USAID cuts that he claimed killed thousands of women and children, Sellers leveled a charge that sent the panel into a frenzy: “Elon Musk is a white supremacist who believes in things like the —”

Criminal defense attorney Arthur Aidala jumped in. “Oh, boy,” Aidala said.

“I wasn’t even finished a sentence,” Sellers shot back.

Scott Jennings had a warning ready for Sellers. “You may need a lawyer when this is over,” he quipped.

Sellers pressed on. Musk “believes in things like the Great Replacement Theory,” he said.

But Aidala pushed back hard. “Considering we have about 12 defamation cases in my office right now,” he said, “before you start throwing things around like someone’s a white supremacist — I would win that case.”

Keep reading

German State Media Accuses Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson of Inciting Belfast Rioters to ‘Hunt’ Migrants

German state media has accused Tesla trillionaire Elon Musk and anti-grooming gang activist Tommy Robinson of calling for the “hunting” of migrants in the wake of an alleged asylum seeker beheading attempt in Belfast.

Tuesday’s edition of German public broadcaster ZDF flagship programme ‘Today Live’ argued that the backlash to footage of a Sudanese asylum seeker allegedly attempting to cut a man’s head off in Northern Ireland earlier this month was a result of malign actors from abroad on social media, signalling out Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson in particular.

Introducing the segment, presenter Christina v. Ungern-Sternberg said: “A brutal attempted murder on a public street in Belfast. Someone films it; the video goes viral. A racist mob subsequently hunts down migrants. Calls for this had come from a British right-wing extremist and tech billionaire Elon Musk. The pattern isn’t new.”

Not only did the German public broadcaster fail to provide any evidence that either Musk or Robinson had called for the violent targeting of migrants, as was seen in some cases during the Belfast riots, ZDF also appeared to undermine their entire argument with the posts they cited as evidence of incietment.

Indeed, in one of the only posts highlighted by the broadcaster, veteran street organiser Tommy Robinson said: “The whole of the United Kingdom is hitting the streets tonight at 7pm following yet another invader attack on our people.”

This post was accompanied with a list of various protests, which featured the call for people to remain: “Peaceful. Respectful. Together.”

The post was shared by Musk, who added: “Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!”

Keep reading

Ukraine Regained Territory After Cutting Russia’s Black Market Starlink Terminals

According to a newly declassified U.S. defense intelligence assessment first reported by Bloomberg, Moscow’s frontline command-and-control structures suffered a catastrophic blackout earlier this year due largely to coordinated crackdown that disabled thousands of black market Russian Starlink terminals.

The Pentagon document highlights just how deeply Russian forces had come to rely on Elon Musk’s commercial satellite terminals to patch over their own spotty military communication systems. For months, Russian units bypassed international sanctions via shadow supply networks to source the hardware.

The Friday Bloomberg report claims that a “Ukrainian offensive against Russia earlier this year retook about 400 square kilometers after thousands of portable Starlink internet terminals operated by Russian forces were deactivated,” citing analysis from the US Defense Intelligence Agency. 

The document, authored jointly by the DIA and US European Command, states that “Russian military capabilities in Ukraine were temporarily yet significantly degraded following Ukrainian officials’ efforts in February to deactivate thousands of Starlink terminals that were illicitly used by Russian forces to coordinate movements and unmanned aircraft strikes in areas where communications were unreliable or easily jammed.”

Ukrainian forces then made their first territorial gains since 2023, after years of steady Russian gains, with Russia military comms now said to be “temporarily yet significantly degraded” due to the loss of the terminals.

The report further describes that Kiev forces working in tandem with SpaceX were able to deploy sweeping geographic restrictions that target-locked and deactivated unauthorized terminals operating inside the combat zone. This resulted in “instant” results.

What also didn’t help is the Kremlin’s own tightening restrictions on the use of Telegram by Russian forces, and so also the recent lack of this favored encrypted messaging platform among military units left frontline commanders totally isolated.

While US intelligence noted that Russia still maintains an overall structural advantage in raw combat functions, and of course manpower and firepower remains on Moscow’s side, the incident demonstrates that communications are still a vital backbone to any modern warfare and command system.

SpaceX has long sought to officially bar Russian consumers from using Starlink, due to long-running sanctions, and to prevent military use against Ukraine.

Keep reading

Elon Musk Offers To Fund LAWSUIT Against UK Police In Henry Nowak Stabbing Tragedy

Elon Musk has stepped forward to hold UK police accountable in what appears to be one of the most disturbing policing failures to emerge from Britain in years.

The tech mogul publicly offered to bankroll a wrongful death lawsuit against officers who allegedly prioritized an attacker’s claims of “racism” over saving the life of 18-year-old Henry Nowak.

Musk’s intervention comes as harrowing bodycam footage from the scene plays out in Southampton Crown Court during the ongoing murder trial of Vickrum Singh Digwa, the 23-year-old man of Indian Sikh heritage accused of stabbing Nowak four times with a 21cm blade.

He followed up with another pointed question: “Has any action been taken against the police officers who handcuffed this boy and made him bleed to death in the street? Who are they?”

In a further post, Musk declared: “Unconscionable. I am happy to fund a wrongful death lawsuit against these disgusting excuses for law enforcement. They damn well better have been fired.”

Keep reading

Jury Sides Against Musk in OpenAI Lawsuit

A federal jury in Oakland, California, went against Elon Musk Monday in a case he brought against OpenAI, alleging the company’s leadership “stole a charity” when they converted it into a for-profit entity.

Through his lawsuit, Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015, sought the removal of Sam Altman as CEO and company president Greg Brockman from their leadership roles, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Musk also wanted an “unwinding of the company’s recent conversion to a more traditional governance structure and damages worth more than $180 billion to be paid into an OpenAI foundation,” the news outlet added.

The jury found all of Musk’s claims fell outside the statute of limitations.

Fox Business reported that Musk left OpenAI in 2018 when he was unable to persuade the company’s leadership to merge with Tesla. OpenAI is the company behind ChatGPT.

“In his lawsuit, Musk accused OpenAI of violating its founding mission as a nonprofit to develop AI for the benefit of humanity when the startup created a for-profit entity in 2019,” Fox Business said.

Keep reading

X Agrees to Review Illegal “Hate” Within 48 Hours Under UK Online Safety Act

X has agreed to process the vast majority of content flagged as illegal “hate” under the UK’s Online Safety Act within 48 hours, giving Ofcom, Britain’s speech regulator, a significant new enforcement win.

The platform committed to “review and assess UK suspected illegal terrorist and “hate” content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool on average within 24 hours of it being reported, to be calculated as a mean” and to “review and assess at least 85% of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within a maximum of 48 hours.”

The deal is a notable reversal for a platform that, less than a year ago, publicly accused Ofcom of taking a “heavy-handed approach” and warned that the Online Safety Act was “seriously infringing” on free expression.

X’s August 2025 statement, titled “What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach,” called out regulators by name and argued that the law amounted to a “conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety.’” That language is gone now. What’s left is a compliance agreement with specific performance targets and a 12-month reporting obligation.

The commitments go beyond speed of review. X also agreed to block access to accounts in the UK if they are reported for “posting UK illegal terrorist content” and deemed to be “operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.”

The platform will share quarterly performance data with Ofcom so the regulator can audit compliance. And following complaints from organizations that couldn’t tell whether X had received or acted on their reports, X agreed to “engage with experts regarding reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content.”

Who those experts are tells you something about the direction of travel. Ofcom’s own press release names the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as one of the organizations it worked with to “gather evidence about suspected illegal terrorist content and illegal hate speech online.”

The CCDH is a pro-censorship campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, who went on to become UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

McSweeney stepped down from CCDH’s board two days after Starmer became Labour leader. The organization maintains close ties to the current government and has stated that its goal was to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” according to leaked internal documents reported by Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker.

Ahmed himself was sanctioned by the US State Department in December 2025 over concerns that his organization had led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” A federal court blocked his deportation with a temporary restraining order.

This is the organization Ofcom chose to help build the evidence base for pressuring X into compliance. Ahmed, for his part, welcomed the deal. Speaking to POLITICO, he said CCDH will be “watching closely to ensure this results in meaningful action, not just words.”

Keep reading

NAACP Sues Musk’s xAI Over Memphis Data Center Pollution

The NAACP has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk’s xAI, alleging that the company’s massive Memphis data center is causing harmful air pollution in surrounding communities. The legal challenge targets the facility that Musk has positioned as critical infrastructure for xAI’s ambitious AI development plans, raising questions about the environmental cost of the AI boom. The lawsuit marks a significant collision between Silicon Valley’s race to build AI supercomputers and environmental justice concerns in communities hosting these energy-intensive facilities.

xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence venture, is facing a federal lawsuit from the NAACP over alleged air pollution stemming from its Memphis data center operations. The civil rights organization filed the complaint targeting the facility that Musk has described as essential to xAI’s efforts to compete with OpenAI, Google, and Meta in the race to build more powerful AI systems.

The Memphis facility represents a massive bet by Musk on scaling AI infrastructure quickly. The world’s richest person selected the greater Memphis area as a hub for xAI’s computational buildout, drawn by available industrial space, power capacity, and local tax incentives. But that rapid expansion is now colliding with community concerns about environmental impact.

The NAACP’s lawsuit alleges that emissions from the data center are degrading air quality in nearby neighborhoods, many of which are predominantly Black communities that have historically borne disproportionate environmental burdens. The legal challenge puts a spotlight on an often-overlooked aspect of the AI boom: the physical infrastructure required to train large language models consumes enormous amounts of electricity and generates substantial heat, requiring extensive cooling systems that can impact local environments.

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s X Commits to Crackdown on ‘Hate Speech’ in UK Watchdog Agreement

Elon Musk’s social media platform X has reached an agreement with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to significantly accelerate the censorship of what England considers “hate speech” and antisemitic content from the platform.

The Telegraph reports that Elon Musk’s X has entered into a formal arrangement with Ofcom, the UK’s online safety regulator, pledging to take swifter action against illegal “hate speech” including racism and antisemitism. The agreement represents a notable shift for the platform, which has faced sustained criticism over its content moderation policies since Musk’s acquisition in 2022.

Under the terms of the commitment announced today, X will now aim to review posts containing hate speech and potential terrorist content within 24 hours of identification. The company has established a minimum performance target of checking and removing at least 85 percent of hateful and antisemitic posts within a 48-hour timeframe. Additionally, X has pledged to take more aggressive action in blocking accounts operated by organizations proscribed under British law.

Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom’s online safety director, characterized the agreement as progress while acknowledging significant work remains. “We have evidence that terrorist content and illegal hate speech is persisting on some of the largest social media sites,” Griffiths said. “We are challenging them to tackle the problem and expect them to take firm action.”

Griffiths emphasized the particular urgency of the agreement in light of recent hate-motivated crimes targeting the Jewish community in Britain.

The agreement comes after a period of tension between X and the regulatory authority. Musk’s company previously clashed with Ofcom over the Online Safety Act, Britain’s primary legislation governing technology companies’ responsibilities. Last summer, X accused the regulator of employing a “heavy-handed approach” and claimed Ofcom was “seriously infringing” on free speech protections.

Ofcom is also conducting a separate investigation into X concerning a wave of non-consensual deepfake images of women and children that spread across the platform in January.

Keep reading

Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI make their final case in a trial that could shape AI’s future

Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI made their final arguments Thursday in the landmark trial whose outcome could shape the future of artificial intelligence.

Musk, the world’s richest man, was a co-founder of OpenAI, which started in 2015 and went on to create ChatGPT. His lawsuit filed in 2024 accuses OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and his top deputy of betraying a plan to keep it as a nonprofit and shifting into a moneymaking mode behind his back.

The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI — breakthrough technology that increasingly has raised fears about its potential impacts on the economy, society and even humanity’s survival. Scrutiny of Altman’s leadership comes at a crucial time for the company and its competitors, Musk’s own AI firm and Anthropic, formed by a group of seven ex-OpenAI leaders.

All three firms are moving toward planned initial public offerings that are expected to be among the largest ever. Musk is seeking damages and changes to OpenAI’s business structure, as well as Altman’s ouster from company leadership. If Musk wins, it could derail OpenAI’s IPO plans.

Timing of lawsuit is key question
One of the jury’s tasks is to decide if Musk filed his lawsuit in time. Much of the testimony has centered on OpenAI’s early years after its founding, but there’s a relatively short timeline to allege the claims Musk is making of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment.

OpenAI has argued that Musk waited too long and cannot claim harms that occurred before August 2021.

The judge wrote in a court filing last month that “if the jury finds that Musk failed to file his action within the statute of limitations, it is highly likely” that she will “accept that finding and direct verdict to the defendants.”

If the jury decides the lawsuit was filed in time, it then has to decide if OpenAI had a “charitable trust” that was broken by OpenAI and its executives. Musk’s other claim means jurors must determine whether Altman, Greg Brockman — co-founder and president — and OpenAI unjustly enriched themselves at Musk’s expense.

For Microsoft, a co-defendant in the trial, the jury has to decide whether the company aided and abetted that breach. Musk invested $38 million in OpenAI during its first years, and Microsoft became OpenAI’s biggest investor after Musk’s departure.

Musk lawyer focuses on Altman’s credibility
Altman and Brockman were in the courtroom Thursday, while Musk was in China with President Donald Trump and other prominent tech executives.

Keep reading

When one man, a civilian, controls the kill switch for military ops

In September 2022, Ukrainian forces prepared to launch a drone strike on the Russian naval fleet anchored off Crimea. The drones never arrived.

Elon Musk had decided, unilaterally, not to activate Starlink coverage over the region. But he wasn’t simply declining to help. SpaceX had already been managing battlefield access for both sides: restricting Russian use, imposing speed limits to prevent drone integration, and maintaining a verified whitelist with Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense. One private citizen, with no security clearance and no accountability to any electorate, was governing the battlefield connectivity of an active war.

The public debate treats this as a story about Elon Musk — his politics, his proximity to the White House, his X posts. That framing lets the actual problem off the hook. Replace Musk with the most patriotic, internationalist, apolitical CEO imaginable and the structural problem remains identical. The Pentagon has spent a decade building critical military functions on infrastructure it can’t legally compel, and the consequences are now arriving in real time.

A common reflex is to argue that private defense contractors have always been central to American military power. Lockheed Martin builds the F-35; Raytheon builds the Patriot. What’s different now is the control plane: who has real-time administrative control during use. When the government buys a tank, it owns it. The keys don’t expire. The manufacturer can’t disable it mid-mission or impose terms in combat. Software and AI are different. Vendors keep ongoing control — updates, access, and usage limits. They don’t sell a capability; they license access to one, and the license has conditions.

Those conditions have already collided with active operations. After months of failed negotiations, the Pentagon formally designated the AI firm Anthropic a supply-chain risk because of restrictions on how its model could be used. The Pentagon was explicit in its decision: “The military will not allow a vendor to insert itself into the chain of command.” Emil Michael, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, described the moment he fully grasped the vulnerability: Anthropic’s models were already embedded across combatant commands and intelligence agencies, wired into classified workflows. Anthropic retained the control plane inside the Pentagon’s cloud — able to update, restrict, or shut off access. When Michael raised hypothetical crisis scenarios, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, offered exceptions case by case. “Just call me if you need another exception,” Michael recalls him saying. In a genuine crisis, a commander can’t call a vendor to authorize military action, nor should he have to.

This isn’t about whether Anthropic’s rules are reasonable. They weren’t set by anyone accountable to the joint force, there’s no override mechanism, and the Pentagon had made itself dependent on systems it doesn’t control.

Keep reading