Connect with us

The Dictatorship

JD Vance’s response to this DOGE staffer’s racist comments reframes amnesty as mercy

Published

on

JD Vance’s response to this DOGE staffer’s racist comments reframes amnesty as mercy

Marko Elez, a 25-year-old who has worked with Elon Musk’s DOGE operationwas very busy last week. First, he resigned after the The Wall Street Journal reported that he had made racist remarks on a now-deleted social media account last year. Then, Musk himself said Elez will return to the government. The decision was backed by none other than Vice President JD Vance, who helped Musk out in his agenda by framing it as an attempt to fight cancel culture. The expected rehiring of Elez and Vance’s excuses for him show the lengths the new administration will go to downplay bigotry.

The Journal reported last week that those archived posts from a deleted X account used by Elez included comments such as: “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool.” And “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity.” Also, “Normalize Indian hate.” And “I would not mind at all if Gaza and Israel were both wiped off the face of the Earth.” NBC News has not seen or verified those posts.

What Vance frames as a call for mercy is in reality a declaration of amnesty for bigotry.

But after Elez’s resignation, Musk posted a survey on X asking his tens of millions of followers whether he should rehire the “staffer who made inappropriate statements via a now deleted pseudonym.” About 80% of the respondents said he should be rehired — an unsurprising result given Musk’s cultlike following on the site. Vance then shared Musk’s survey with his own comments:

“I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life. We shouldn’t reward journalists who try to destroy people. Ever. So I say bring him back. If he’s a bad dude or a terrible member of the team, fire him for that.”

At a press conference Friday, President Donald Trump said he wasn’t familiar with the specifics of Elez’s case, but co-signed Vance’s judgment and said “I’m with the vice president.”

Vance’s post slyly attempted to reframe openness to bigotry as a compassionate demonstration of forgiveness for a vulnerable person. Vance calls Elez a “kid,” implying that Elez was being punished for posts written when he was too young to have known better. Vance’s comments helped turbocharge this particular myth — across X, prominent users misleadingly described Elez’s comments as the indiscretion of a child or a teenager.

In fact, not only is Elez 25 years old, but also all the posts cited by the Journal were reportedly published within the last year. Besides, if Elez is too young to be held accountable for his commentary, then why should he hold a position in government requiring public trust? Vance’s framing of his position as a show of strength against “journalists who try to destroy people” is disingenuous. It was in the public interest for the Journal to shed light on a government worker’s comments that suggest a possible appetite for discrimination. That concern is all the more pronounced because of the way Musk has sought to skirt norms of transparency and process and in his efforts to purge the federal workforce and seize control of its data.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., asked Vance on X, “Are you going to tell him to apologize for saying ‘Normalize Indian hate’ before this rehire? Just asking for the sake of both of our kids.” (Vance is married to an Indian American woman and has three children with her.) Vance replied by implying Elez’s posts should be viewed as “stupid jokes,” and treated Khanna as the real villain:

I don’t worry about my kids making mistakes, or developing views they later regret. I don’t even worry that much about trolls on the internet. You know what I do worry about, Ro?

That they’ll grow up to be a US Congressmen who engages in emotional blackmail over a kid’s social media posts.

You disgust me.

Note that Vance dodges Khanna’s reasonable suggestion that Elez at least apologize. (To date, Elez has offered no known public comment on the matter. A text message and phone call by NBC to a number associated with Elez were not immediately returned, and he did not comment to the Journal either.) Note too that Vance implies Elez regrets saying what he did, despite the absence of public evidence supporting the claim. And note that again, Vance implies the adult in question is a child.

In other words, what Vance frames as a call for mercy is, in reality, a declaration of amnesty for bigotry. Second chances and the opportunity for rehabilitation are good things, but Vance does not articulate why this specific person should get that treatment, nor does he mention any other means for accountability.

During his first term, Trump was rightly dogged by controversy for saying there were “very fine people on both sides” of the clashes at the “Unite the right” Charlottesville rally in 2017 which was attended by white supremacists. Now, he’s co-signing his vice president and his purger-in-chief’s attempts to shield an underling from the bare minimum of accountability for views so evidently repugnant that Musk and Vance had to alter the timeline of when those views were uttered. And this administration is just getting started.

Zeeshan Aleem

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm

Published

on

Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm
  • New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’

    10:42

  • ‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister

    08:37

  • Now Playing

  • UP NEXT

    ‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears

    05:47

  • The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’

    04:59

  • Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war

    03:53

  • Ukraine didn’t agree to ceasefire, they bent the knee to extortion, says House member

    07:26

  • Dumbest war the U.S. has ever fought: House member slams Trump’s tariffs

    03:09

  • ‘Mock him’: Why Democrats are failing when it comes to protesting Trump

    09:39

  • Musk calls Sen. Mark Kelly a ‘traitor’ over his social media posts in support of Ukraine

    04:00

  • Richard Engel: Today, Ukrainians ‘quite satisfied’ with temporary ceasefire

    04:16

  • ‘Serious and dangerous’ for the economy: Trump’s messaging scares some of his own advisers

    08:57

  • Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports take effect, Europe retaliates

    09:11

  • Joe Scarborough’s powerful 9/11 tribute song ‘Reason to Believe’ (2011)

    03:45

  • Joe’s decade-long warnings on EU immigration and the rise of Europe’s far-right

    03:28

  • What really happens before Morning Joe goes live? ‘Blue Dawn’ tells all (2019 Promo)

    04:15

  • The Morning Joe crew gets moving to ‘Dance to the Music’ (2015 Promo)

    03:00

  • We have underestimated Putin as an ideological leader: Amb. McFaul

    08:58

  • Molly Jong-Fast: Trump’s empty promises are catching up to him

    03:09

  • Joe: Elon Musk said we have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare

    10:56

  • New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’

    10:42

  • ‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister

    08:37

  • Now Playing

    Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm

    03:49

  • UP NEXT

    ‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears

    05:47

  • The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’

    04:59

  • Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war

    03:53

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Published

on

Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly said of President Donald Trump“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”

Trudeau’s accusation was extraordinary and unprecedented. Here was the leader of Canada, one of America’s closest and longest-standing allies, accusing the U.S. president of engaging in economic warfare. More and more, however, it seems Trudeau wasn’t making this argument up. The evidence is piling up that Trump has declared economic war on Canada for the express purpose of making our Northern neighbor the 51st state.

Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.

Trump first referred to Canada as the 51st state in a December 2024 meeting with Trudeau. At the time, the Canadian Prime Minister assumed Trump was joking. But then, in January, he said it again publicly, this time threatening the use of “economic force” to pursue annexation. In addition, he began referring to Trudeau as “Governor” rather than “Prime Minister.”

By this point, one could easily chalk this up to Trumpian bluster. He couldn’t possibly be serious about annexing Canada? Could he?

But, two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, a private call between him and Trudeau, which was supposed to be about tariffs, took an odd turn. According to The New York Times, Trump told “Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” He also mentioned revisiting long-standing treaties between the U.S. and Canada regarding the sharing of lakes and rivers.

Even the Canadians were taken aback by Trump’s statement — and it slowly began to dawn on them that perhaps the president was serious (or as serious as one can be about an insane notion like the U.S. annexing Canada).

Publicly, Trump wouldn’t let the matter die. In an interview broadcast before the Super Bowlon February 9, Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier his plans to annex Canada were a “real thing.” And to magnify Canada’s economic vulnerability, Trump told reporters that Canada was “not viable as a country” without U.S. trade.

The problem for Canada is that Trump isn’t wrong on this front. Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.

In the current context of the emerging trade war between the U.S. and Canada, it seems more than reasonable to believe that this is precisely Trump’s intention.

Consider for a moment how this trade war has unfolded. When Trump first declared his intention to slap tariffs on Canada, he used the smuggling of fentanyl across the Canadian border as a justification (never mind that 19 kilograms of fentanyl came across the Canadian border last year, compared to 9,600 kilograms that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border). After Trudeau reminded Trump of Canada’s plan for slowing the smuggling of fentanyl, which was introduced late last year, he backed down.

But then last week, Trump returned to the trade spat with Canada, but this time blamed Canada because of its protectionist trade policies on dairy, lumber and banking. After Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, announced a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, Minnesota and New York, in response, Trump upped the ante announcing a new 25% tariff on Canada’s exports of steel and aluminum (which is in addition to already planned tariffs on steel and aluminum).

How can Canadians end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?

In announcing the new tariffs, Trump didn’t mention fentanyl as a justification, but instead wrote on TruthSocial that “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” In a follow-up post, he wondered why the U.S. “allow(s) another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area?”

Trump’s zigzagging has left markets and the business community flummoxed. For Canadians, the confusion is even worse. How can they end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?

But perhaps the obvious answer is staring us in the face, and we’re all too dumbfounded to acknowledge it. Trump has been remarkably consistent in stating that Canada should become America’s 51st state — he has said this repeatedly for months now. Moreover, he has openly espoused using U.S. economic power to achieve that goal — and is doing precisely that.

Just so we’re clear, this is not a Trump-only phenomenon. Yesterday, when asked if the U.S. still considers Canada a “close ally,” White House press secretary Katherine Leavitt said that Canada would “benefit greatly” from joining the United States and pointed to its high cost of living as a reason for surrendering sovereignty.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sounded a similar theme, noting that “Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”

In recent days, the Trump administration has further imposed its will on Canada by requiring Canadians who visit the country for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government.

The first 51 days of Trump’s presidency have been, for lack of a better word, an odyssey. Crazy has been dropped on top of more crazy. But  in the year 2025, an American president, with no pushback from his Cabinet or Congress, has declared economic war on our closest neighbor to annex its land (which is larger than America’s) and wants to make its 40 million citizens part of the United States. This is the craziest notion of all.

Michael A. Cohen

Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

Published

on

The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to hand a blank check over to a White House that is already stealing from our families and communities to fund the largest possible tax cut for billionaires and the biggest corporations.

The continuing resolution passed by the House gives Elon Musk and President Donald Trump even more flexibility to steal from the middle class, from seniors, from veterans, from working people, from small businesses and from farmers, all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

The administration’s slash-and-burn approach has already left a trail of destruction in our communities. From our national parks to Social Security officesVA medical centers to food banks, Americans are seeing the direct results of the administration’s illegitimate, ill-informed and illegal campaign to tear apart our institutions.

This CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government.

Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out Congress’s authority to determine spending. It reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” To carry out this authority, the House and Senate Appropriations committees engage in tough negotiations that result in bipartisan legislation to fund the government and all of the agencies, programs and services that are provided to the American people.

As recently as early March, we were on the cusp of such an agreement. The “four corners” of the Appropriations committees — Tom Cole and me in the House and Susan Collins and Patty Murray in the Senate — were inches away from securing a deal on the funding topline, which would have allowed us to begin the roughly monthlong process of writing full-year bills.

This process is critically important: It ensures that final funding bills are the results of broad compromise among the people’s elected representatives. Nobody ever gets everything they want, but instead, the interests of Americans from coast to coast are considered and accounted for.

But House Speaker Mike Johnson, at the behest of Musk and President Trump, pulled the rug out from under us and set the House on a track to hand Congress’ authorities over government funding to Musk and Trump. Several of my House colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who by their own admission never vote in favor of government funding bills, enthusiastically voted for this CR, completely ending the appropriations process.

As Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districts, the American people are wise to their abandonment of duty.

Why? Because this CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government and destroy the services that help Americans get by, and because they believe the president will continue to unilaterally freeze and deny funding for programs and services that do not serve his interests.

House Republicans would rather let an unchecked billionaire and President Trump seize taxpayer funds intended for families and businesses.

But as Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districtsthe American people are wise to their abandonment of duty and of responsibility. Their constituents are so furious that the party’s political consultants are telling lawmakers to stop holding town halls altogether and just hide.

President Trump was elected because the American people wanted help with the cost of living. But the cost of living is nowhere to be found among the president’s concerns since he took office. Rather, he has set off on an agenda of vengeance and destruction, threatening the stability of our economy and the legitimacy of our government. He declared a trade war on our neighbors and closest alliesraising costs on American households, businesses and farmers and weakening our international relationships.

And the Trump administration continues to steal from the American people to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Elon Musk, an unelected, unaccountable billionaire with immense conflicts of interest, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency have been allowed to illegally freeze payments, tear down our institutions, fire career civil servants who are loyal to the Constitution rather than to President Trump and rip apart hard-fought labor agreements that protect working-class Americans. They even have Social Security in their sights.

My phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents telling me how Musk’s and President Trump’s cuts have affected them, and I know the same is happening in my Republican colleagues’ offices.

Kris, a student at Common Ground High School in my district and an intern at Haven’s Harvest, a volunteer organization that reduces food waste, contacted me after 71 student workers across New Haven were laid off because of the funding freeze. Kris’ internship was part of the Green Jobs Corps, funded by a grant since canceled by the Environmental Protection Agency.

I’ve also heard from CitySeed, which connects dozens of farmers across Connecticut with residents who need access to fresh, local food, through farmers markets, culinary programs and entrepreneurship opportunities. The organization has had funding that helps cover its administrative costs frozen, as well.

And Monica, a senior citizen in my district with a low income who relies on Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP benefits, told me she is not just worried about paying her bills or filling the freezer — she is worried that she will not be able to survive if the Trump administration’s cuts go through.

Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder.

I was at Bradley Airport in Connecticut this week when two Transportation Security Administration officers found out they had been let go. One of them told me they began working for the TSA immediately after its creation in the wake of Sept. 11. I must have missed when the American people asked for fewer TSA agents and longer wait times at checkpoints.

This is wrong, cruel and completely unnecessary. The funding freeze must end, and these draconian cuts must be stopped. But instead of standing up for their constituents and for Congress’s constitutional powers, the CR that passed the House lets Musk and President Trump freeze, cancel and repurpose taxpayer dollars as they see fit.

If this CR becomes law, Musk and President Trump will be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. That will result in office closures, longer wait times and unacceptable backlogs for Americans who are trying to access their earned benefits.

Under this bill, Army Corps of Engineers construction projects to manage our waterways and mitigate flood risks will be cut by $1.4 billion, or 44%. And President Trump, not Congress, would determine all project funding levels and who gets the funding.

Instead of helping our communities address sky-high housing costs, the CR cuts rent subsidies by more than $700 million, leaving landlords to foot the bill or evict more than 32,000 households. And there is not enough funding for disaster relief, abandoning American families who have had their lives turned upside down by extreme weather.

I voted against this CR, and several of my Republican colleagues voted in favor of a CR for the first time, for the same reason: We do not expect the president to actually follow the law.

Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending, as is laid out in Article I of the Constitution?

So long as House Republicans are unwilling to defend the powers of the offices they were elected to hold, all of our constituents will continue to pay the price.

Regrettably, the House has already offered to forfeit its authority to the White House. I implore our colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the American people and our Constitution, reject this CR and put a freeze on this blank check.

Rep. Rose

Rep. Rosa DeLauro serves as ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. She represents Connecticut’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending