The Dictatorship

It will be hard to dislodge Elon Musk — but not impossible

Published

1 year ago

February 17, 2025

It will be hard to dislodge Elon Musk — but not impossible

The Department of Government Efficiency has in just a few short weeks interjected itself into multiple federal agencies, risking major damage to their core functions. Its leader, billionaire Elon Musk, is using his platform as owner of X to call for a “second American revolution” and attack judicial authority to his millions of followers. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump appears to be handing over control of a large portion of the federal government to the billionaire, signing an executive order Wednesday calling on federal agencies to work with his unelected task force in culling staff rosters.

Musk sits at a nexus of power that few — if any — Americans have ever held.

Musk sits at a nexus of power that few — if any — Americans have ever held. His businesses have cultivated deep, grasping ties within the federal government — especially the national security state — over the years, resulting in contracts worth at least a staggering $18 billion. Without SpaceX’s rockets, NASA will scramble to get into orbit; without the satellites the company is helping to launch, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be less able to track extreme weather. His Starlink satellite internet service has been a crucial tool in Ukraine’s war against Russia and stands to be the recipient of even more Defense Department contracts in the future. But without the guarantee of federal revenue, Musk’s fortune would likely be more vulnerable to the investors whose confidence in him helps maintain his massive net worth (on paper at least).

That hand-in-glove relationship with Washington is important to understand why the billionaire is so dead set on tearing down the federal bureaucracy. Musk isn’t alone among the Silicon Valley billionaire class in being tied to the government and tilting right. As I write in my new book “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left,” he stands alongside the likes of Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen in having both benefited from federal funding and gone further to the right in a reactionary response to cultural liberalism and the attention of the regulatory state. Despite decades of federal subsidies for the tech industry, it has been nowhere near a two-way street in the eyes of the private-sector benefactors. Now that they’ve glutted themselves on taxpayer funding, they would argue, it would be anti-American to expect them to give any of that back or be subject to any meaningful oversight.

Now, Musk is trying to reset the way the government works to prioritize his own interests. Though his fortune depends on federal cash, his businesses have been subject to a plethora of investigations from federal agencies ranging from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Department of Justice. The future of those inquiries, including complaints from his own workers to the National Labor Relations Board, seem grim given his place at Trump’s right hand.

But Musk’s approach to his own workforce and federal laws is emblematic of how he is taking on his role at DOGE — and how he can be expected to react if pushed back on. Such overreach is bound to generate a reaction, but he’s not likely going to roll over without a fight. Musk is currently empowered within the government and outside of it; a precarious position for the rest of us from someone who takes any threat or criticism as a declaration of war.

Now, Musk is trying to reset the way the government works to prioritize his own interests.

But this weekend, everyday Americans took the first step, using Tesla charging stations and dealerships as sites to protest Musk’s illegitimate power grab. The “Tesla Takedown,” as the group behind the demonstrations calls it, held actions on Saturday at sites within the U.S. and Canada. In Washington, elected Democrats are slowly getting the message from their constituents that Musk is a problem in need of solving. Lawmakers in Congress have introduced bills to address his unelected influence and power and have been urged to do more.

Ironically, the same person who empowered Musk might also be more vulnerable to outside pressure than Musk himself. Trump is famously thin-skinned and hyperaware of his standing in the public eye. The question of just what would wind up pushing him and Musk apart has been at the forefront for months given the egos at play and the increasing unpopularity of what the billionaire is trying to do with DOGE. Add to that the potential of plummeting poll numbers as DOGE chaos hits the average American, and the possibility of turning the White House against the billionaire can’t be ignored.

Holding Musk accountable is going to be difficult so long as he has both his shareholders and Trump to shield him. Taking a stand outside of his dealerships and chargers is a good start when you consider the billionaire’s famously thin-skinned nature. It also helps to make clear to investors that his personal brand is a weight to the company, not an asset.

No matter what ultimately dislodges him, Musk remaining empowered to make policy for federal agencies cannot become normalized. Democrats need to begin planning now on how to unravel his grasp on vital national security areas, letting his contracts expire and replacing them with improved state capacity. If nothing else, Musk’s rapid accumulation of power shows that the parasitic relationship he enjoys with the federal government can’t be allowed to continue unchallenged through future administrations.

Eoin Higgins is a writer based in New England. His book, “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left,” is available now.

The Dictatorship

Newly created Polymarket accounts bet big on US-Iran ceasefire in hours before Trump’s announcement

Published

6 hours ago

April 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Newly created Polymarket accounts bet big on US-Iran ceasefire in hours before Trump’s announcement

NEW YORK (AP) — A group of new accounts on the prediction market Polymarket made highly specific, well-timed bets on whether the U.S. and Iran would reach a ceasefire on April 7, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits for these new customers.

These bets were made even though, in the hours before a two-week ceasefire was announced on Tuesday, President Donald Trump’s rhetoric had escalated sharply and there were few signals that a ceasefire deal was imminent. Early in the day Trump had issued a warning on social media that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran did not meet his demand to open the Strait of Hormuz by his 8 p.m. ET deadline.

An analysis of publicly available blockchain data from Polymarket, using the crypto analytics platform Dune, shows that at least 50 accounts, or wallets, placed substantial “Yes” bets Tuesday before Trump announced the ceasefire in a Truth Social post at around 6:30 pm ET. These were the first bets made by these particular wallets.

One of these wallets, created Tuesday around 10 am ET, placed roughly $72,000 in bets at an average price of 8.8 cents. The buy-in for each betting event ranges from $0 to $1 each, reflecting a 0% to 100% chance of what users think could happen. This Polymarket user then cashed out for a profit of $200,000.

Another, which joined the platform on April 6 and traded on this exact event, shows a win of $125,500.

Another wallet, created 12 minutes before Trump’s post, made $31,908 of “Yes” bets at 33.7 cents, and is estimated to have earned a profit of $48,500. The higher price for “Yes” at that time may have reflected the efforts late Tuesday by the government of Pakistan to get Trump to extend his deadline by two weeks.

There is also the possibility that these individual Polymarket users placed their bets expecting Trump to back down, given his habit during his second term to make bold threats only to retreat — a phenomenon his critics have derided as “Trump Always Chickens Out,” or TACO.

While some users took handsome profits, others must wait for payouts because Polymarket has labeled the April 7 Iran-U.S. ceasefire contract as “disputed,” given that Iran was still placing restrictions on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz and missile attacks in the region continued. That dispute could take 48 hours to resolve.

Public blockchain data cannot identify who controls the new wallets. Polymarket uses proxy smart contract wallets, meaning a single user can create multiple accounts. Only Polymarket has the internal data needed to determine whether these were new users or existing users opening additional accounts.

Polymarket did not respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, who has introduced legislation to regulate prediction markets, released a statement Wednesday saying: “It’s highly unlikely that these are good-faith trades; it’s much more likely that these are insiders with access to information ahead of the public. Without some kind of restrictions, there is nothing stopping government or military officials from profiting from their positions.”

The trading pattern of newly created Polymarket accounts placing strategic, well-timed bets mirrors earlier episodes on the platform. Newly created accounts placed large wagers hours before the January capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and made hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit. Similar clusters of accounts have also repeatedly profited from well-timed bets on military actions involving Iran.

Such bets have repeatedly raised questions from the public as well as members of Congress about whether some traders are using inside information to profit in these prediction markets. Bipartisan groups of senators as well as representatives have introduced legislation that would broaden the definition of insider trading to include prediction markets.

Even the two biggest platforms in the industry, Kalshi and Polymarket, have said they see a need to broaden the definition of insider trading on their platforms.

“This is why these markets need regulation,” said Todd Philips, a professor at Georgia State University who has written on prediction markets and the industry’s regulations. “We can’t have people trading with inside information and expect other traders are going to be OK being in these markets.”

_____

Keller reported from Albuquerque, N.M.

The Dictatorship

Trump administration looks to sanitize George Washington’s slavery history

Published

13 hours ago

April 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump administration looks to sanitize George Washington’s slavery history

Apr. 9, 2026, 5:39 PM EDT

The Trump administration’s fragile white ego is in focus yet again thanks to newly proposed changes for an exhibit in Philadelphia centered on George Washington and slavery.

The administration is being sued by the city over its efforts to whitewash Washington’s history of slave ownership from the President’s House Site, the nation’s first official presidential residence. The push has been put on hold by a judge who compared it to the censorship depicted in George Orwell’s book “1984.”

The attempted alteration of the exhibit came after a Trump executive order demanded a review of national parks and museums to bar any displays that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” Last year, Trump also lobbed a puerile complaint that Smithsonian musuems focus too much on “how bad” slavery was.

And all that kvetching provides context for the changes that Trump’s administration is seeking to impose at the President’s House Site — alterations that The Philadelphia Inquirer said places the first president’s slave ownership “in a more sympathetic light.”

The Inquirer flagged government renderings showing plans for new historical panels to be installed at the site, and it seems clear that the administration’s goal is to make Washington out to be a loving patriot or conscientious objector to slavery, rather than a racist slave driver.

First, note what the Inquirer said has been removed:

The panels taken down by the Park Service in January included displays titled ‘The Dirty Business of Slavery’ and ‘Life Under Slavery,’ as well as illustrations about the Fugitive Slave Act and Ona Judge, who was enslaved by Washington and later escaped.

So the administration wants to omit detailed references to Washington’s slavery history — which Black activists fought for years to include — while also promoting a whitewashed narrative that he was a fundamentally moral man despite the whole “claiming dominion over other human beings” thing. Per the Inquirer:

For instance, on one panel titled ‘Presidents Washington and Adams on Slavery,’ the Trump administration writes that ‘Caught between his private doubts about slavery and his public responsibilities as president, George Washington navigated a nation deeply divided over slavery.’

‘Privately, George Washington often expressed discomfort with the institution and a desire to see it abolished,’ the panel continued. ‘Yet as a Virginia plantation owner, his wealth and livelihood were deeply tied to it.’

And another example:

And later in the same panel: ‘Slaves living in the President’s House experienced a greater modicum of autonomy than elsewhere in the South such as to explore the city and sometimes even attend the theater, with Washington buying the tickets.’

When a censorship regime like Trump’s sees fit to tout a slave owner’s generosity — and the “greater modicum of autonomy” he purportedly granted to those he subjected to brutal bondage and forced labor — it leaves little doubt that the fundamental goal is to sanitize history, rather than teach it thoroughly.

A White House spokesperson told the Inquirer that the administration wants to acknowledge “the full breadth of our nation’s history” and that “no piece of history should be washed away.”

But “whitewashing” truly is the most apt descriptor for a plan that includes touting George Washington as some kind of selfless, principled gift-giver while brushing past, or deliberately omitting, details about his well-documented — and extremely lucrative — history of enslaving human beings.

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

The Dictatorship

Thursday’s Mini-Report, 4.9.26

Published

13 hours ago

April 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Crisis conditions in Lebanon: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel vowed on Thursday to continue striking Hezbollah in Lebanon, hours after he appeared to make a concession by saying his country would start talks with the Lebanese government about trying to disarm the Iran-backed paramilitary group.”

* In related news: “More than 80 countries — which did not include the U.S. — condemned Israel’s lethal strikes on Lebanon. … Several international leaders have condemned Israel’s intensified strikes on Lebanon, which killed more than 300 people yesterday alone, according to The Associated Press, citing the country’s health ministry.”

* This wasn’t a problem before the war: “Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei vowed today to tighten control over the Strait of Hormuz and claimed victory in the ongoing war between his country and Israel and the U.S. ‘We will definitely take the management of the Strait of Hormuz to a new phase,’ Khamenei said in a series of posts on X.”

* Inflation news: “Core inflation held above the Federal Reserve’s target before the recent surge in energy prices, according to a key gauge released Thursday that offers the central bank a snapshot of conditions leading into the Iran war. The core personal consumption expenditures price index, which excludes food and energy, rose a seasonally adjusted 3% in February, the Commerce Department reported. The all-items headline inflation measure increased 2.8%.”

* The good news is, the vaccine saves lives; the bad news is, the Trump administration doesn’t want us to know that: “The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has delayed publication of a CDC report showing the covid-19 vaccine cut the likelihood of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for healthy adults last winter by about half, according to two scientists familiar with the decision.”

* Even for this White House, her remarks were weird: “First lady Melania Trump denied any ties to convicted sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell on Thursday. … ‘The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,’ the first lady began in remarks delivered from the White House. … It was not clear who or which statements or reporting she was referring to.”

* On a related note, Donald Trump told MS NOW that he didn’t know about his wife’s press statement.

* Trump’s animosity toward the NFL has reached a new stage: “The Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether the National Football League has engaged in anticompetitive tactics that harm consumers, according to people familiar with the situation.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”