Elon Musk Faces Lawsuit for Phony Election Sweepstakes

Elon Musk will face a lawsuit accusing him of defrauding voters with his shady, pre-2024 election lottery—in which the billionaire dangled a chance for a million-dollar payday over voters who signed a pro-Constitution petition by his America PAC.

“We are going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election,” Musk told a Pennsylvania crowd in October. But amid a failed attempt by Philadelphia’s district attorney to halt the giveaway, America PAC revealed that the $1 million recipients were not chosen by chance but handpicked, with their personal stories being a factor in the selection process.

This was news to Jacqueline McAferty of Arizona, who had signed the petition and, on Election Day, proposed a class action, claiming that Musk and America PAC had defrauded voters. Musk, McAferty said, induced voters with false statements to sign the petition and submit “personal, private information” in the process.

Musk in January sought to get the case dismissed, insisting that people who signed up for the chance to win $1 million weren’t harmed by sharing their personal information and were told—despite his apparent statements to the contrary—that America PAC staffers would review their cases rather than leave their selection up to chance.

But on Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas ordered Musk to face the lawsuit.

“It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery—even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do,” wrote U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, per Reuters.

Pitman also suggested that a political data expert could testify and help determine the value of the information that McAferty and other signatories provided to Musk.

Musk’s presence in the political sphere has shrunk in recent months. He funneled millions into the Trump campaign and led the president’s efforts to gut the federal government before the two had a very public falling out over the administration’s sweeping tax and spending plan.

But the world’s richest man remains interested in politics: When The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Musk had given up on his plans to start a political party, which he first cooked up during his feud with Trump, Musk suggested that this wasn’t true.

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday baselessly dismissed a recent report that exposed the regressive nature of the administration’s economic agenda.

During a Thursday visit to Georgia, a reporter with Atlanta News First asked the vice president to justify the fact that, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Trump’s spending plan will exacerbate the wealth gap.

According to the report, the so-called One, Big Beautiful Bill Act will cost the poorest Americans an estimated $1,200 per year from 2026 to 2034, while furnishing the richest with an extra $13,600.

Vance’s reply?

Sometimes, he said, the CBO’s reports are “absolutely atrocious, and I think this is a good example of a very atrocious report.”

To defend the claim, he pointed to the bill’s temporary no-tax-on-tips and no-tax-on-overtime provisions (which were, according to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, “designed in ways that limit their benefits for less affluent taxpayers”).

Most importantly, Vance said, Trump’s policies will keep jobs in the United States. But rather than explain how, he provided a quite circular argument: “That is the very best thing for the people at the bottom of the income ladder, and that’s why we have the economic policies that we do.”

The vice president went on to tout the president’s mass deportation campaign.

Last month, when Vance was rallying for the bill’s passage, he described its impact on the federal budget (as measured by the CBO) and its historic cuts to the social safety net (“the minutiae of the Medicaid policy,” as he put it) as “immaterial,” in light of the billions it puts toward Trump’s draconian immigration agenda.

Far-right Freedom Caucus member Chip Roy—whom President Donald Trump once described as “weak and ineffective”—is now running for Texas Attorney General.

Roy adds his name to a large group of conservatives looking to replace current Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is now running for Senate. Roy and Paxton were close, with Roy even working as assistant attorney general for Paxton in 2014.

That all changed when Roy called on Paxton to resign in 2020 on allegations of bribery and abuse of office.

Roy has also been a constant agitator within the GOP, as he most recently opposed Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” on fiscal grounds. But Roy chose to leave the past conflict out of his campaign announcement ad.

“Today, we draw a line in the sand. Texans’ next attorney general must have a proven record of fighting to preserve, protect, and defend our legacy—an attorney general unafraid to fight, unafraid to win,” Roy said. “That’s why I fought to secure our border and help President Trump deliver results.”

Roy will be running against state Senators Mayes Middleton and Joan Huffman, and former Paxton aide Aaron Reitz.

California’s Supreme Court has struck down the state GOP’s attempt to delay Governor Gavin Newsom’s redistricting plan, clearing the runway for the measure to reach the November referendum vote. 

The GOP lawmakers who filed the challenge argued that Newsom had moved forward too quickly, and violated the state’s independent redistricting commission. 

On Wednesday, the justices disagreed.

Newsom’s plan, which is contingent upon Texas passing its initial redistricting effort, has some California Republicans incensed.

“We have a governor, we have political insiders, we have legislators who are breaking California’s Constitution by drawing congressional maps behind closed doors, with no transparency,” California state Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares told CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Wednesday. 

“The new maps that Democrats in your state want to pass … they include a trigger, that they would only go into effect if Texas’s redistricted maps go into effect.… Do you hold Texas Republicans at all responsible for what you’re facing in your state?” Keilar asked. 

“Well, that actually—Governor Newsom said that this would only happen if Texas redrew their maps, however that’s not what the bill language they presented said,” Vallardares said. “It says if any state redraws their maps, that this would go into an effect.” 

“OK. But that’s the effect of this. There is a trigger. This isn’t happening in a vacuum. There’s a contingency. And in this case, it is Texas. So let’s just be clear. If it says other states, well, it’s Texas,” Keilar said. “So do you have any criticism from members of your own party in Texas?” 

Vallardares avoided the question, instead insisting that what Newsom was doing was wholly illegal.

“If you can’t criticize Republicans in Texas for their approach, which is so different from the one that you’re advocating for in California, how should voters see California Republicans … opposed to a move like this only when it doesn’t favor them?” the CNN reporter asked.

“Listen, I was elected, and the 120 legislators that were elected this past November in California, to uphold the California Constitution. This isn’t a Republican issue. This isn’t a Democrat issue. This is an issue of political elitists in California silencing and taking the power away from California voters,” Valladares said, once again avoiding Keilar’s question. 

California’s redistricting referendum is set for November 4.  

A federal judge ruled Thursday that Alina Habba has been illegally serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey and blocked her from prosecuting two criminal defendants who’d challenged her appointment.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” wrote U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann in a 77-page court filing. Brann wrote that Habba has been acting unlawfully as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey since July 1.

Last month, New Jersey federal judges decided to fire Habba, refusing to vote to extend her 120-day appointment as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, but the Trump administration found a loophole to keep its thoughtless foot soldier in place without Senate confirmation. After it fired the first assistant U.S. attorney who was approved to replace her, and then appointed Habba to that position, Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer found herself as acting U.S. attorney once again.

Brann’s decision was a response to a motion from defendants Julien Giraud Jr., Julien Giraud III, and Ceasar Humberto Pina.

The Girauds were indicted on three counts, including drug and firearm charges, in November, and Pina was indicted in a separate case in July on six counts, including charges for wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering. The Girauds and Pina had submitted motions arguing that Habba’s appointment was illegal.

The judge granted the Girauds’ motion to disqualify Habba from participating in their prosecution, and Pina won his plea, in part. Brann wrote that because Habba had signed Pina’s indictment on July 7, the indictment was “presumptively defective”—though the indictment would not be dismissed.

“The Court will stay this decision and its effects pending the resolution of any appellate Proceedings,” Brann concluded, meaning that Habba would stay in her position while the government appealed the decision. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal the ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.