Elon Musk Says He’s Stopping Political Spending for Funniest Reason

Elon Musk claimed Tuesday that he plans to back off from buying American elections, following his failed attempt to purchase a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat earlier this year.

While speaking remotely at the Qatar Economic Forum, Musk was asked whether he intended to go on another shopping spree during America’s upcoming midterm elections. The billionaire bureaucrat had dropped a whopping $228 million on Donald Trump’s campaign.

“Are you going to continue to spend at that kind of level on future elections?” asked Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain.

“I think, in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk replied.

“And why is that?” Husain asked.

“I think I’ve done enough,” Musk said. Some laughter echoed throughout the hall.

“Is it because of blowback?” Husain pressed.

“Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. And I don’t currently see a reason,” he said.

Musk spent at least $20 million to back the Republican candidate in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race—but lost. Afterward, a humiliated Musk pretended he didn’t even care about the results, but it was too late: He’d proved himself a political liability instead of an asset.

Musk’s messy work with the Department of Government Efficiency has tanked public opinion of the current administration, while protesters across the country target their ire at the billionaire bureaucrat and his beloved Tesla dealerships. Musk shed 25 percent of his personal wealth in Trump’s first 100 days in office.

In a humiliating first-quarter earnings report, Musk’s Tesla said that profits had crashed by a whopping 71 percent, falling to a mere $409 million, compared with $1.39 billion from the same quarter last year. There was even a report that Tesla was looking to replace Musk as CEO, which the company promptly dismissed and which sent Musk into a rage.

Earlier in the interview, Husain had asked Musk about Tesla’s tough spot. “I wonder if some of what has happened to Tesla in the last few months—did you take it personally?”

“Yes,” Musk answered, to loud laughter in the audience.

“And did it make you regret, or think twice about, your political endeavors?” Husain asked.

After a long pause, Musk replied, “I did what needed to be done.”

Elon Musk is having a hard time explaining his cushy new Starlink contracts.

While speaking with Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum Tuesday, the world’s richest man aggressively dodged a direct question about his space-based internet network’s reported deal with South Africa, which would circumvent the country’s post-apartheid laws.

After refusing to engage with the idea that there had been a conflict of interest between his work for the Trump administration and operating his multibillion-dollar international businesses, Musk pushed back against the question that foreign governments could be using deals with his companies in order to cozy up to the White House.

“Starlink is obviously a very good internet service,” said Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain. “It also had more contracts coming its way, and there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signals.”

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is planning to offer Musk a Starlink contract ahead of Ramphosa’s meeting with Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, despite the fact that Musk’s business doesn’t fit the parameters of South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment laws.

“That is being done on the event of the visit President Ramaphosa is expected to make to the White House. Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest?” Husain asked.

“No, of course not,” Musk responded. “First of all, you should be questioning why are there racist laws in South Africa. That’s the first problem; that’s what you should be attacking. It’s improper for there to be racist laws in South Africa.”

“The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, great man, proposed, is that all races should be on equal footing in South Africa,” Musk continued. “Whereas there are now 140 laws in South Africa that basically give strong preference to if you’re a Black South African, and not otherwise.”

Musk then repeatedly pressed Husain on whether she believed that was “right,” while the moderator elaborated that the law was about to change to benefit Musk.

“Those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa, and it looks like the government has found a way to work around those rules for you,” Husain said.

“I asked you a question,” Musk said, eliciting an awkward laugh from the crowd. “Why do you like racist laws?”

“This is not for me to answer,” Husain said. “Now, you wouldn’t be trying to dodge a question that’s difficult for you to answer?”

The South African government’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment policy stipulates that all companies that do business in the nation must have at least 30 percent of their ownership or economic involvement owned by Black South Africans. Musk claimed Tuesday that he’s been rejected for a business license in his home country because he’s “not Black,” though Starlink has failed to meet the requirements for the license.

The mandate is a part of the country’s efforts to correct inequalities left in the wake of apartheid, striving to “advance economic transformation and enhance the economic participation of black people in the South African economy,” per the South African Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Musk has practically made the notion of diversity his enemy through his work at the Department of Government Efficiency, where he pitched to strip and defund federal agencies whose missions make mention of inclusivity efforts.

And on his social media platforms, the billionaire’s X-based artificial intelligence bot Grok has practically confessed that its algorithm was changed in order to accommodate Musk’s “white genocide” conspiracy regarding South Africa.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem just gave an absolutely incorrect definition of habeas corpus, displaying a deeply alarming lack of knowledge for someone overseeing the Trump administration’s illegal immigration crackdowns. 

“Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?” Senator Maggie Hassan asked at a hearing on Tuesday.

“Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country—” 

“Let me stop you, ma’am. Excuse me, that’s incorrect,” Hassan replied.

“President Lincoln used it—” 

“Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people,” Hassan said, explaining an undergraduate-level principle to the acting DHS director. 

“If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason,” she continued. “Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the ‘live free or die’ state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans. So Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides, that the government must provide public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?” 

“I support habeas corpus, I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not—”

“It has never been done without approval of Congress, even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress.” 

Senator Andy Kim gave Noem another chance to display her ignorance. 

“I wanted to just go back to something that was raised earlier about habeas corpus,” Kim said. “Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?” 

“President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with, um, retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current day president. This president has never said he’s going to do this, he’s never communicated to me or his administration that they’re going to consider suspending habeas corpus,” Noem replied. “But I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it.”

“How many times has habeas corpus been suspended in our country?” Kim asked.

“Once that I know of.” 

“Four times.” 

“I’m not certain if that those were—”

“The instance that you’re referring to is one where the courts subsequently showed that Congress is the one that has the ability. Do you know what section of the Constitution the suspension clause of habeas corpus is in?” 

“I do not. Nope.” 

“Do you know which article it is in?” 

“No I do not, sir.” 

“Well it is in Article 1. Do you know which branch of government Article 1 outlines the tasks and the responsibilities for?”

“Yes.” 

“Which one?” 

“Congress,” Noem replied, proving the point Kim and Hassan had been trying to get across. 

This is an administration that has no knowledge of the Constitution because it could care less about following it. Stephen Miller himself said earlier this month that they’re trying to suspend habeas corpus because we’re being “invaded.” That couldn’t be further from the truth.  

Leo Terrell, a Trump-appointed lawyer in the Justice Department, wants to press charges against Jill Biden for “elder abuse.”

The former Fox News contributor posted on X Sunday night, shortly after Joe Biden publicly announced his cancer diagnosis, sharing a post calling out the former first lady for knowing about “President Biden’s health problems.”

“But still wanted him to run for President. Evil,” posted Ian Jaeger, a right-wing account, to which Terrell added his own commentary: “Elder Abuse! Criminal Charges??”

Terrell wasn’t the only figure on the right attacking the former president’s wife. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, took a shot at Jill Biden’s educational credentials, appearing to mistake her doctorate for a medical degree.

But while Trump Jr. is only a conservative influencer with a podcast, Terrell is the senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights in the DOJ, and could actually push for a trumped-up criminal investigation if he wanted. He would find no shortage of supporters on the right or in the White House, who have constantly pushed the narrative of the “Biden crime family” to distract from President Trump’s own criminal activities.

For the past two days, the right has run with a cover-up narrative about Joe Biden’s health on the part of Democrats, the left, the media, and anyone it distrusts, which apparently includes Jill Biden. To them, it’s a far more important subject than funding the government, or the current president’s own cognitive decline.

Donald Trump’s Justice Department is sending a message.

Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba announced late Monday that she had dropped charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for facing off with authorities at an ICE facility in his city earlier this month. But in a back-to-back press release, the Justice Department official revealed that the administration would instead be going after a sitting congresswoman who was also present that day.

Habba, Trump’s former personal attorney, declared charges against Representative LaMonica McIver for “assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement,” and insisted that McIver’s conduct during the ICE facility clash “cannot be overlooked.”

“I have persistently made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges and have given Representative McIver every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined,” Habba said in a statement.

McIver and Baraka have both denied accusations that they were violent at the protest.

“The charges against me are purely political—they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight,” McIver said in a statement.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries torched the Trump administration last week for the charges against Baraka and for hinting they would go after McIver next. Jeffries argued that threatening to arrest a sitting congresswoman for visiting an ICE facility would be a clear example of executive overreach.

“It’s a red line,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol at the time. “They know better than to go down that road.”

McIver visited the Ice facility earlier this month alongside Representatives Rob Menendez and Bonnie Watson Coleman, fellow New Jersey Democrats. Baraka joined the trio for a tour. The lawmakers were reportedly at the facility to serve a summons for code violations to a representative of the facility’s operating company, Geo Group.

After Baraka passed the entry gates, the group was barraged by agents, with at least one of the lawmakers getting shoved. Baraka was ultimately arrested, and Habba accused him of trespassing and ignoring multiple warnings from Homeland Security to leave the premises.

But the lawmakers did not interpret the events of the day that way.

“What we experienced was the weaponization, is the abuse of power.… They know who we are … they manhandled us and arrested the mayor,” Coleman said, adding that “if they can treat members of Congress like that, imagine how they treat people on the streets.”

Representatives from around the country echoed that sentiment. In a post on X late Monday, Texas Representative Greg Casar wrote that the charges against McIver should “send a chill down the spine of every American.”

“If the president can arrest law-abiding elected officials in an attempt to silence them, then no American is safe from his abuses of power,” he wrote.