Trump’s Trainwreck Elon Musk Interview May Have Broken the Law

Donald Trump’s lengthy interview with Elon Musk earlier this week may have violated federal campaign regulations, at least according to one Democratic-aligned political action committee that has already filed an FEC complaint over the issue.

The complaint, filed Tuesday by End Citizens United, argued that the unfettered “conversation” on X, Musk’s $12.5 billion company, amounted to a “virtual campaign event” financed by the social media platform. Per the FEC’s website, a contribution is “anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.”

End Citizens United also claimed that the event did not fall under press exemptions set forth by the election commission on the basis that X is not a traditional news outlet; that the company devoted “considerable resources” to host the interview, including dedicating “real time staff” to fix numerous technical glitches; and (perhaps most significantly) that Musk has repeatedly voiced his support for Trump in the 2024 race, and launched the talk with the intention to platform Trump’s personal beliefs.

“Because X spent considerable resources to host an event to expressly advocate for Trump and was not entitled to the press exemption for that event, Respondents have violated the ban on giving and receiving corporation contributions,” the complaint alleged.

The group called for the FEC to “immediately investigate” the violations and to take “appropriate remedial action” against the “brazen corporate contribution.”

Unfortunately for End Citizens United, such high-profile complaints can take months or even years for the ideologically gridlocked six-commissioner panel at the FEC to investigate, making it highly unlikely for the group to reach a consensus before the November election.

“The Donald Trump-Elon Musk campaign rally hosted on X wasn’t just an incoherent diatribe of lies marred by technical difficulties—it was a blatantly illegal corporate contribution to Donald Trump’s campaign,” said End Citizens United president Tiffany Muller in a statement. “This brazen corporate contribution undermines campaign finance laws and would set a dangerous precedent for unfettered, direct corporate engagement in campaigns.”

Donald Trump’s livestream interview with Elon Musk on X Monday night was plagued not only with technical glitches but also Trump’s own slurred speech. Late Tuesday night, Trump finally came up with an excuse.

“My conversation with Elon last night was heard by a RECORD audience, and was really something special, as Elon himself is very special—and I thank him for such a strong Endorsement!” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Unfortunately, because of the complexity of modern day equipment, and cellphone technology, my voice was, in certain areas, somewhat different and strange. Therefore, we have put out an actual, and perfect, recording of the conversation. ENJOY!!!”

The post followed another late-night post, made an hour before, where Trump went on the offensive against Kamala Harris.

“Kamala: You ruined San Francisco, one of the greatest cities in the World, you ruined California, one of the greatest places on Earth—And you will turn America into a giant combination of both,” Trump’s post read. “We are not going to let that happen. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Trump’s excuse probably won’t be bought by anyone but the right. The Harris campaign has already seized upon his glitches, as well as Trump’s extremist rhetoric from the interview. The Trump campaign is trying to claim that one billion people watched the livestream, but that’s not going to get much traction either. The likeliest explanation for Trump’s slurring words may be his cognitive decline, which is all the more noticeable now that he’s the oldest candidate in the race.

Elon Musk’s judge-shopping attempt to get back at advertisers has failed.

The CEO of X (formerly Twitter) is trying to sue a coalition of advertisers who he claims conspired against the social networking site by refusing to buy advertisements. Reed O’Connor, a federal judge in the northern district of Texas, recused himself from the lawsuit Tuesday after NPR reported that he owns stock in Tesla, another one of Musk’s companies.

Last week, Musk sued the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a group of advertisers, media agencies, and platforms that focus on safety in media and technology. The lawsuit also targets the parent organization of GARM, the World Federation of Advertisers, and four of its member companies: Orsted, Unilever, CVS Health, and Mars.

Musk appears to have chosen the northern district because it is a favorite of conservatives, as almost all of its judges have been appointed by Republicans, even though the case has little, if anything, to do with Texas. O’Connor has a reputation for giving the right the rulings they are looking for. For example, he has repeatedly tried to gut or eliminate the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, even going after HIV drugs and cancer screenings. 

NPR’s report found that O’Connor owns between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of Tesla stock, which gives the appearance of a conflict of interest and ultimately seems to have led to O’Connor’s recusal. But while that will delay the advertiser lawsuit, O’Connor is still presiding over a different Musk lawsuit against Media Matters, filed in November, accusing the liberal media watchdog of defaming X by pointing out the rise in hate speech on the site.

The Media Matters lawsuit is still ongoing and still has the right-wing judge presiding over it. Even with O’Connor’s recusal from the advertiser lawsuit, Musk had a small measure of success as GARM announced last week that it would be disbanding, claiming that it didn’t have the financial resources to fight billionaire Musk. The question is how much more money Musk is willing to spend to punish perceived slights.

Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has been altering the headlines on real articles in Google search results to make them appear more pro-Harris, Axios reported Tuesday.  

The articles—which, unbeknownst to the outlets publishing them, are transformed into advertisements by the Harris campaign—include a banner that says “Paid for by Harris for President” floating above URLs linking articles on sites such as the Associated Press, Reuters, The Independent, and more. 

The headlines and deks, or subheads, of these articles have been changed in the search results to emphasize support for Harris’s accomplishments. 

For example, an article about Harris’s economic plan published by NPR was accompanied by the headline “Harris Will Lower Health Costs” and a dek that states “Kamala Harris will lower the cost of high-quality affordable health care.”

While the banner is meant to make clear that the results are advertisements, not articles, the ads may create the impression that Harris is backed by certain news organizations when she is actually not. 

Spokespeople for CNN, USA Today, and NPR told Axios that they weren’t aware their brands were being used by the Harris campaign. 

A spokesperson for The Guardian, which had also been featured in the ads, made a statement to Axios. “While we understand why an organization might wish to align itself with the Guardian’s trusted brand, we need to ensure it is being used appropriately and with our permission,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll be reaching out to Google for more information about this practice.”

This style of ads is common in commercial marketing, and Google has said that those ads don’t violate its rules. However, this approach may ultimately prove to be a gambit that lacks an actual advantage as it potentially undermines trust in the news. 

It is also unclear why Harris’s campaign felt the need to do this, as there has been plenty of positive coverage of Harris since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed her to replace him.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump isn’t running these kinds of ads, according to Google’s transparency center, although he has edited articles he posted on Truth Social. But honestly, why would he want to align himself with mainstream media, which he actively rails against? Trump has previously vowed retribution against the press, which he claims has treated him unfairly, referring to journalists as the “enemy of the people.”

The momentum behind Kamala Harris has been so major that it may turn Florida blue again in November.

The Democratic presidential nominee is closing the gap on the Sunshine State’s solidly red status, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University/WSVN-TV survey of 500 registered voters released Tuesday. The poll results suggest Harris is just five percentage points behind Donald Trump—a far cry from the 19-point advantage that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis had over Democrat Charlie Crist in 2022.

The USA Today poll showed Trump receiving the support of 47 percent of surveyed potential voters in Florida, while Harris gained the support of 42 percent. That five-point difference is within the poll’s margin of error.

Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. trailed behind with 5 percent, while another 5 percent were undecided or refused to disclose their preference.

Another poll conducted by Civiqs indicated that the number of Democrats feeling positive about the upcoming election had shot up since President Joe Biden exited the race, with approximately 34 percent of the party reportedly feeling hopeful. The number of surveyed participants feeling negative—including “scared,” “depressed,” and “angry”—had all gone down.

That could be why former Texas Representative Beto O’Rourke believes that the Lone Star State could also be coming into play for Harris—or, at the very least, that her candidacy would motivate enough Texas Democrats to vote downballot in other contentious races.

“The thing is you now see Democrats smiling,” O’Rourke told MSNBC Monday. “There is joy in our party. There is electricity moving through our system. And yes, places that I think were written off are now in contention.”

“I think Harris-Walz rise or increase the chances that we’re going to be able to win these races,” O’Rourke continued, referring to the House race between Democrat Michelle Vallejo and Republican Representative Monica De La Cruz, as well as Democratic Representative Colin Allred, who’s gunning for Senator Ted Cruz’s seat.

“Who knows, but Joe Biden lost Texas by only 5.5 points in 2020. It’s been moving faster into the blue column than any other battleground state. Anything, I think, is possible in this year, and with the energy that those two are bringing to the ticket, I think that Texas could possibly be in play,” O’Rourke said.