Elon Musk Vows to Reinstate Kanye West’s Hitler-Loving Muse

In a move that will surprise few people, Elon Musk announced Thursday that far-right commentator Nick Fuentes, known for racist, neo-Nazi, and antisemitic views, will soon be allowed back on X.

“Very well, he will be reinstated, provided he does not violate the law, and let him be crushed by the comments and Community Notes,” Musk said in a reply to a question from one of Fuentes’s fans. “It is better to have anti whatever out in the open to be rebutted than grow simmering in the darkness.”

Fuentes has been banned from X since July 2021. He and his supporters call themselves the “groyper army,” and push racist and white nationalist beliefs while also claiming to uphold Christian values. Groypers gained notoriety for disrupting conservative events and spouting racist statements to troll right-wing accounts on social media. Their activities have even influenced Kanye West, who joined Fuentes for a dinner at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in 2022. Despite accounts stating that Trump was impressed with Fuentes, he later blamed West for bringing Fuentes to the meeting.

Fuentes has denied the Holocaust and also expressed prejudice against Muslims, LGBTQ people, and even women. He attended the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, and was present outside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., during the insurrection on January 6, 2021. He is still banned from other platforms, including Reddit and YouTube, but has a verified account on Trump’s Truth Social.

Musk apparently believes that these viewpoints and activities should not warrant a social media ban, but should be publicly challenged. When he first took over Twitter in 2022, Musk unbanned many accounts that spouted similar beliefs to Fuentes’s, and he has continued to reinstate such accounts, claiming free speech grounds. But Musk has also engaged in random suspensions of left-wing accounts and those critical of him, as well as the wife of deceased Russian dissident Alexei Navalny and the grandson of South African leader Nelson Mandela. At the same time, advertisers continue to flee the site as it is overtaken by newer platforms like Meta’s Threads.

The Utah state government has unveiled a new official tip line for snitching on bathroom-goers, inviting the public to make note of whenever they witness a person they believe to be transgender using the “wrong” bathroom.

The form, which was unveiled Wednesday, is the result of the state’s “Sex-Based Designations for Privacy, Anti-Bullying, and Women’s Opportunities” bill. The measure enacted a section of the Utah Code that would effectively allow the state auditor’s office to initiate investigations into alleged gender-related bathroom misconduct on government property. For Utah, the first step of those investigations apparently looks like inviting practically anybody to submit a form where they can snitch on “employees or officials” involved in the supposed violation.

“The alleged violation must have occurred at a publicly owned or controlled facility, program, or event. When possible, citizens should make a good faith effort to address and resolve concerns with the government entity before submitting a complaint to the State Auditor,” explains a section at the top of the form.

But in unfortunate news for the Republican-led state governments that create them, previous snitch form efforts have been shockingly ineffective. A similar effort by the Missouri attorney general’s office in March 2023 for “Transgender Center Concerns” ushered in a scourge of digital spam by pro-trans rights activists, forcing the state to shut down the initiative after just a month, as its inboxes were flooded with fanfiction and copies of the Bee Movie script.

Meanwhile, the public surveillance initiative seems to promote the very behavior—voyeurism in public restrooms—that conservatives accuse the transgender community of engaging in, and which prompted the very laws that the forms are meant to enforce. And, even if the form was utilized in exactly the way that Republicans intended, it would only enforce very rigid expectations of gender expression: if you happen to be a woman with masculine features or a man with feminine features, you could very well be clocked and logged by the state. As a result, the form would prove harmful to cisgender and transgender people alike.

During an interview on Real America’s Voice Thursday, former national security adviser Michael Flynn claimed that he received eight subpoenas the night before, complaining that there was a massive effort to keep Donald Trump out of office and himself out of government.

“Steve, a little breaking news here on your show, I received eight, count ’em, eight subpoenas last night,” Flynn said in an interview with fellow Trump adviser Steve Bannon, claiming that the effort was part of a Marxist plot against Trump and himself.

“So these people are going to do everything they can, these Marxists, this Communist takeover of the United States of America,” he continued. “And we are in the throes of a Marxist takeover of the United States of America.”

Flynn resigned in disgrace from the Trump administration less than two months after Trump was sworn into office in 2017, after leaks emerged showing that he lied to colleagues about conversations with Russian officials. He later took a deal to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections, but then withdrew from the deal and lobbied to have his charges dropped.

Ultimately, Trump pardoned him in the last few months of his presidency, and Flynn went on to advise Trump to respond to his election loss by suspending the Constitution, declaring martial law, and holding a new election, even arguing with fellow Trump advisers in the White House to support it.

But why would Flynn be facing subpoenas now, assuming he isn’t exaggerating or lying? His activities since 2021 include pledging an oath to the QAnon conspiracy theory, preaching about Christian nationalism in tours around the country, and, as he mentioned in the interview with Bannon, touting the new movie Flynn, which portrays him as a victim of the so-called “deep state.” Perhaps he’s been up to something as nefarious as what he accuses Trump’s critics of doing.

Former Stormy Daniels attorney Keith Davidson retook the stand in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial Thursday, offering up fresh revelations about the original source of the payments.

Reading aloud a statement he drafted to former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on February 13, 2018, Davidson revealed just how carefully he had chosen his language in order to take some pressure off Michael Cohen and to cloud the fact that he knew the money was coming at Trump’s behest.

“I read today that Michael Cohen reports that the source of the $130,000 paid to Ms. Clifford was from his own personal funds,” Davidson read in part to the court. “That assertion is in complete harmony with what he informed me of at the time of the transaction.”

But that statement was only literally true, according to Davidson, who claimed he knew the money would be coming from Cohen but that Trump was the ultimate source of the funds.

Four days after the letter was drafted, Cohen and Trump would meet in person to solidify the $130,000 repayment scheme.

The whole narrative is counter to what Trump’s attorneys have attempted to argue, which is that the funds strictly came from Cohen and that Davidson hadn’t directly interacted with the former reality TV star.

Trump is accused of using Cohen to sweep an affair with Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The Republican presidential nominee faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Donald Trump still can’t give a straight answer on whether he’d accept the results if he loses the election.

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Wednesday, the former president said he’d only accept a loss in November’s presidential election “if everything’s honest.”

“If everything’s honest, I’d gladly accept the results,” Trump said. “If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country. But if everything’s honest, which we anticipate it will be—a lot of changes have been made over the last few years—but if everything’s honest, I will absolutely accept the results.”

That’s a big caveat, leaving him plenty of wiggle room to claim “dishonesty!” if Joe Biden gets more votes. Trump has never said that he’d accept election results where he didn’t win. In 2016, he complained of a “rigged election” in August, which he would repeat often on the campaign trail, and then just weeks before November’s election, he again claimed he’d accept the results “if I win.”

In 2020, Trump didn’t concede in his loss to Biden and fought the results every step of the way, from his lawyers attempting fake elector schemes to arguably inciting an insurrection at the Capitol building on the day the country’s election results were certified. Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his election loss spawned what is known as the Big Lie: that he was the legitimate winner in 2020 and the election was stolen from him. Many of his faithful supporters still believe it in earnest.

Trump’s historical and recent comments do not bode well for November. He has hinted at another insurrection attempt if he loses, and he still hasn’t faced consequences for his last attempt, thanks to the Supreme Court. The far right has signaled its willingness to react with violence, including even some politicians. Whether Trump wins or loses, the scenarios don’t look good.

Donald Trump’s big mouth in his New York hush-money trial has so far cost him $9,000 and earned him a formal warning about the possibility of jail time if he continues to violate the partial gag order. But he may not be the only main character in the criminal case who needs a court order to shut his gob.

According to former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance, Trump’s former fixer turned star witness Michael Cohen may need the same kind of restrictions in order to keep his gossip and jabs at Trump off the internet.

“Witnesses need to keep their mouths shut until they are in the courtroom,” Vance said on The Insider Podcast Tuesday, adding that Cohen’s comments online could very well become “fodder” for Trump’s attorneys.

And there seems to be plenty of material for Trump attorney Todd Blanche to choose from. On Thursday, Blanche began rolling through some of the evidence, airing a mess of inflammatory social media posts made by Cohen about his former boss throughout the month of April. That included posts that referred to Trump by Cohen’s nickname for him—“Von ShitzInPantz”—and a retweet of another that lambasted him as a “racist jackass who referred to African nations as ‘shithole countries,’” in light of Trump’s attempt to liken himself to Nelson Mandela.

Trump is accused of using Cohen to sweep an affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The Republican presidential nominee faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Representative Lauren Boebert paid a visit to the Gaza protest encampment in Washington, D.C., at George Washington University—and was quickly met with heckles of “Beetlejuice.”

Boebert arrived at the encampment on Wednesday with several other Republicans from Congress, as students sang “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. Then their attempt to grandstand at the encampment was overshadowed by student protesters yelling “Beetlejuice,” referencing the time Boebert and her date were kicked out of a Denver theater’s performance of the play for disruptive and lewd behavior. 

She toured the encampment and tried to pull a Palestinian flag off a statue of George Washington, coming into contact with protesters. She failed to remove the flag, and her security staff led her away.

It’s not the first time Republicans visited one of the protest encampments set up by college students across the country to protest their institutions’ involvement with Israel and its brutal war in Gaza. Last week, Mike Johnson visited Columbia University’s protest encampment to grandstand himself, attacking protesters and calling for the National Guard to clear the encampment.

Police would clear Columbia’s encampment days later, pushing students out of an occupied building in an overwhelmingly excessive response. A similar takedown took place Thursday morning at UCLA. At all of the protests across the country, the students’ demands are being ignored in favor of overblown allegations from critics. Currently, it seems protests will continue until something substantive happens, like an end to weapons shipments to Israel or a cease-fire.

Ohio Senator J.D. Vance believes that people should follow the law—except when it’s convenient to his personal political cause.

In a testy exchange with CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins Wednesday night, Vance got caught up in his own loose definitions, revealing a double standard conservatives hold when it comes to the Gaza solidarity protests happening on college campuses across the nation.

“You can’t police people for being anti-Israel or pro-Israel; you can police people for violating the law,” Vance said.

“OK, so you agree that people who break in and vandalize a building should be prosecuted?” Collins said, to which Vance replied with a quick “Yes.”

“OK, I’m just checking, because you helped raise money for people who did so on January 6,” Collins continued. “Which was, you know, impeding an official proceeding, breaking into a building that they weren’t allowed to be in, and vandalizing the Capitol.”

But Vance was surprisingly prepared to dodge the question.

“Well, Kaitlan, I know this is the obsession of the national media to talk about what happened two years ago—three years ago, on January 6—” Vance said, before Collins interjected to specify that it’s “not an obsession” but rather a possible “double standard.”

“Here’s been my basic argument about January 6: If you beat up a cop, of course you deserve to go to prison,” Vance continued. “If you violated the law you should suffer the consequences. But there are people who protested on January 6 who’ve had the complete weight of the Justice Department thrown at them when at worst they’re accused of misdemeanors.”

But then Vance chose to harp on something that happened four years ago, once again punching down on a predominantly peaceful protest.

“Now, again, there are people who are accused of worse offenses, and that’s a problem, but you can’t have Black Lives Matters protesters who rioted and go free, when you had people who were actually peacefully protesting on January 6 who had the book thrown at them—that’s the double standard that I’m most worried about.”

Nearly 2,000 January 6 rioters were charged with crimes related to assaulting officers, destruction of government property, entering a restricted federal building, conspiring to obstruct a congressional proceeding, or for impeding one. Approximately 467 of them have been sentenced to periods of incarceration, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

At least two House Republicans voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act on Wednesday … because they think the bill criminalizes Christian beliefs.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 320–91. Twenty-one Republicans voted against it. Among them were Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explained the bizarre logic behind their opposition on social media.

Gaetz and Greene each posted on X (formerly Twitter) that a portion of the bill, specifically the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism, could be used against Christians “for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.”

Gaetz claimed the bill had been written “without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words.”

Greene, meanwhile, warned the bill could be used to “convict Christians of antisemitism.”

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, among them being that it’s used both to silence criticism of the state of Israel and to conflate support for Palestinians with prejudice. But believing that the Jewish people killed Jesus is an old and antisemitic trope. The fact that Gaetz and Greene, who both call themselves staunch supporters of Israel, each seem to think that Christianity justifies this line of thought calls into question how they really feel about the Jewish people.

At a time when students are facing brutal crackdowns for protesting on college campuses to call for their institutions to divest from companies affiliated with Israel and its harsh war in Gaza, the bill’s timing suggests that it is being used as a litmus test for legislators insufficiently supportive of Israel. That’s a real reason to oppose the bill, one that critics have pointed out. But good luck getting the far right to realize that.

The Arizona legislature secured just enough votes on Wednesday to repeal a 160-year-old abortion ban that was revived by the state’s Supreme Court in April.

The decision to nix the archaic law appears on track to pass thanks to the votes of every Democratic lawmaker, as well as two state Senate Republicans, T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick. If the bill passes, it will go to Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, who is expected to sign it. That will return the state to its previous abortion status, which banned the medical procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But some legislators fear that even if the vote does pass, there might still be a waiting period before the 15-week ban is officially enacted—and during that time, all abortions will still be outlawed. That period would last approximately 90 days after the end of the session, ending in June or July, unless the repeal comes with an emergency provision.

“Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect,” Arizona state Attorney General Kris Mayes told the Associated Press.

Shortly after the new ban took effect, the Arizona legislature devolved into a state of chaos, with Republicans blocking discussions to repeal the ban. In a dramatic show, Democrats responded by chanting “shame” at their colleagues across the aisle.

The near-total abortion ban from 1864—before Arizona was even a state—offers no exceptions for instances of rape or incest. But some Republicans in the state, especially the ones currently on the campaign trail, immediately came out against it. That includes Senate candidate Kari Lake, who claimed the draconian ban was “out of line with where the people of this state are,” despite having aggressively fought for it in multiple political campaigns and calling the 1864 legislation a “great law.”

Other Arizona Republicans who conveniently came out against it include Representative David Schweikert, Representative Juan Ciscomani, and former Republican Governor Doug Ducey, even though he was responsible for appointing four of the justices who brought the ban back to life.

Meanwhile, Republicans are still working on their own plans to permanently rid the state of abortion access, including one plot to introduce an abortion-restricting measure on November’s ballot with the hopes of confusing voters.

The only solution, according to local Democratic leaders, is to vote. Democrats need to flip just two seats in each state chamber in order to obtain a majority.

“As Republicans regroup to defend their 15-week ban and work to undermine the upcoming abortion ballot measure in Arizona, we are focused on flipping the two seats in each chamber that will deliver Democratic majorities in Arizona’s legislature,” said Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee President Heather Williams in a statement. “Voters have an opportunity this year to deliver Democratic majorities by flipping just two seats in each chamber.”

This story has been updated.