“Economic Terrorism”: Teamsters President Finally Slams Trump

During his interview with Elon Musk Monday night, Donald Trump praised the tech CEO for firing organizing workers, drawing the ire of labor unions and those who care about workers’ rights.

It also reflected poorly on Sean O’Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who became the first union leader to speak at the Republican National Convention last month.

“Firing workers for organizing, striking, and exercising their rights as Americans is economic terrorism,” O’Brien said in a statement Tuesday to Politico’s Playbook.

In his conversation with Musk, Trump laughed at Musk’s union-busting practices. “I look at what you do,” Trump told Musk. “You walk in and you just say, ‘You wanna quit?’ They go on strike—I won’t mention the name of the company—but they go on strike and you say, ‘That’s OK. You’re all gone. You’re all gone. So, every one of you is gone.’”

The Teamsters are one of the only major unions that have not yet endorsed Kamala Harris for president, a surprising stance considering historic Democratic support for labor unions. Pressure is building against O’Brien from within the union’s rank-and-file members, as the Teamsters National Black Caucus voted unanimously to endorse Harris on Tuesday.

In a statement, the caucus said that Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz have an “unwavering commitment to workers and their families.”

“Their records reflect a deep dedication to advancing labor rights and supporting working-class Americans,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers has not only endorsed Harris, but also filed federal labor charges against Musk and Trump for “illegal attempts to threaten and intimidate workers who stand up for themselves by engaging in protected concerted activity, such as strikes.”

O’Brien has said that the union will endorse a presidential candidate after the Democratic National Convention, and has invited all of the candidates for interviews. Harris was invited last month, but has not yet had an interview with the Teamsters. O’Brien said on Tuesday that he had not received an invitation to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

Donald Trump appears to be losing the support of the one demographic that has reliably backed him, and is essential to winning the White House: white voters without a college degree.

CNN’s senior data reporter Harry Enten appeared on Out Front with Erin Burnett Tuesday to discuss what a recent New York Times/Siena College poll showed about Trump’s “core group” of white working class voters—the very same people who helped him break down the blue wall in 2016.

While the poll found that Trump still led among white voters without a college degree, his favorability appeared to have taken a massive hit in light of his new match-up against Vice President Kamala Harris.

In May, Trump was leading President Joe Biden among white voters without a college degree in the swing states Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by a whopping 25 points. This latest poll shows that Trump’s lead has been nearly cut in half: in August, Trump only leads Harris by 14 points with this demographic in those swing states.

Harris’s apparent surge in support comes just as the vice president has managed to pretty much erase Trump’s edge on the economy, according to a new survey the Financial Times published last week, signaling a crucial shift in momentum for the Democratic candidate. Enten explained that Harris was doing slightly better among those voters, in those key states, than even Biden had in 2020.

“Those are the types of numbers that Kamala Harris needs to put up in order to win. And of course, Joe Biden was like, ‘I don’t want to drop out of the race, because I’m not sure that Kamala Harris can break into the group,’ but it turns out she absolutely can,” Enten said.

“The margin is shrinking, and elections are all about margins,” Enten continued. He explained that these numbers were significant more broadly as well, because non-college educated white voters make up 50 percent of the electorate in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Trump’s advisers previously revealed that the former president tapped J.D. Vance as his running mate to pick up white working class votes. The campaign needed “a white guy to get the white guys we lost,” MAGA political operative Vish Burra told The Bulwark. If this recent polling is any indication, it seems the campaign’s play has yet to pay off.

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.