One Way to Keep Trump’s Authoritarian Fantasy From Becoming Our Reality
Jamelle Bouie – April 23,2025
Credit…Daniele Volpe for The New York Times
The American constitutional system is built on the theory that the self-interest of lawmakers can be as much of a defense against tyranny as any given law or institution.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, “The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” Our Constitution is nothing more than a “parchment barrier” if not backed by the self-interest and ambition of those tasked with leading the nation.
One of the most striking dynamics in these first months of the second Trump administration was the extent to which so many politicians seemed to lack the ambition to directly challenge the president. There was a sense that the smart path was to embrace the apparent vibe shift of the 2024 presidential election and accommodate oneself to the new order.
But events have moved the vibe in the other direction. Ambition is making a comeback.
Last week Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland traveled to El Salvador, where he met with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a victim of the Trump administration’s removal program under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Under its reading of the law, which allows the president to summarily detain or expel foreign nationals from the United States, the Trump administration has sent hundreds of people accused of being gang members, most of Venezuelan origin, to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador.
Abrego Garcia is one of the men trapped in this black zone. Despite his protected legal status, he was arrested, detained, accused of gang activity and removed from the United States. At no point did the government prove its case against Abrego Garcia, who has been moved to a lower-security prison, nor did he have a chance to defend himself in a court of law or before an immigration judge. As one of his representatives in the U.S. Senate, Van Hollen met with him both to confirm his safety and to highlight the injustice of his removal.
“This case is not just about one man,” Van Hollen said at a news conference after his visit. “It’s about protecting the constitutional rights of everybody who resides in the United States of America. If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, you threaten the constitutional rights and due process for everyone else in America.”
Later, in an interview with CNN, Van Hollen accused the Trump administration of ignoring the Supreme Court, which this month told the White House to comply with a district court order to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return: “‘Facilitate’ does not mean you do nothing.” As for the president’s claim that Abrego Garcia is a dangerous gang member and so he wasn’t removed in error (as the administration acknowledged in a court filing), “What Donald Trump is trying to do here is change the subject,” Van Hollen said. “The subject at hand is that he and his administration are defying a court order to give Abrego Garcia his due process rights.”
The goal of Van Hollen’s journey to El Salvador — during which he was stopped by Salvadoran soldiers and turned away from the prison — was to bring attention to Abrego Garcia and invite greater scrutiny of the administration’s removal program and its disregard for due process. It was a success. And that success has inspired other Democrats to make the same trip, in hopes of turning more attention to the administration’s removal program and putting more pressure on the White House to obey the law.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey is reportedly organizing a trip to El Salvador, and a group of House Democrats led by Representative Robert Garcia of California arrived on Monday. “While Donald Trump continues to defy the Supreme Court, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is being held illegally in El Salvador after being wrongfully deported,” Representative Garcia said in a statement. “That is why we’re here, to remind the American people that kidnapping immigrants and deporting them without due process is not how we do things in America.”
“We are demanding the Trump administration abide by the Supreme Court decision and give Kilmar and the other migrants mistakenly sent to El Salvador due process in the United States,” Garcia added.
All of this negative attention has had an effect. It’s not just that the president’s overall approval rating has dipped into the low 40s — although it has — but that he’s losing his strong advantage on immigration as well. Fifty percent of Americans said they disapproved of Trump’s handling of immigration, according to a recent poll from Quinnipiac University, and a new Reuters poll showed Trump slightly underwater on the issue, with a 45 percent approval to 46 percent disapproval.
Americans were even negative on the specifics of the president’s handling of immigration. Most people responding to a March Reuters/Ipsos poll, 82 percent, said the president should follow federal court rulings even when he disagrees with them. A smaller but still significant majority said the president should stop deporting people in defiance of court orders. And Americans were broadly opposed to the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have lived in America for a long time or who have children who are U.S. citizens or who are law-abiding except for breaking immigration law.
Know someone who would want to read this? Share the column.
Americans might have liked to hear the president talk tough on immigration, but when it came to real actions affecting real people, they are much less supportive. And in traveling to El Salvador, dramatizing the plight of Abrego Garcia and attacking Trump on the most unpopular aspect of his immigration policies, Democrats like Van Hollen are creating the kinds of negative attention for Trump that could turn more Americans against the president’s immigration policies.
These Democrats are also highlighting the vital importance of political leadership after months in which it seemed to have vanished from liberal politics in the United States. Despite a narrow victory with one of the smallest popular vote margins on record, there was a real sense — as Trump began his second term — that his vision had won America over. The United States was Trump country, and the best anyone could do was to adjust to the new reality.
Many elites and institutions that took a posture of opposition to Trump in his first term looked to cooperate — and in the case of Silicon Valley, even assisted — in his second. Likewise, powerful Democrats abandoned resistance in favor of a more measured, supposedly realistic approach. “It’s just accepting the reality that Trump won. And us just saying he’s a chaotic guy goes nowhere. That’s just baked into people’s consciousness,” Senator Peter Welch of Vermont said in January. “The fact is, people want change. So that means we have to be willing to change as well.” Or, as one unnamed Democratic adviser told Politico just after Trump’s inauguration, “The path to prominence is not in endless resistance headlines.”
Democrats would, in the words of a former administration, lead from behind. They would follow the public’s outrage if and when it materialized. Otherwise, they would work with the administration when it made sense. They might even hand him a little bipartisan success. As Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania put it in a January interview with ABC News, “The Republicans are going to drive the agenda, and I’m going to find a way to work together along on all of those kinds of priorities.”
This approach would make some kind of sense if Trump were a normal president in pursuit of a normal, albeit conservative, political agenda.
But Trump is not a normal president. And it’s hard to say that he aspires to be a president at all, if by “president” we mean an executive officer, bound by the law, who serves ultimately at the pleasure of the American people. No, Trump wants to be a strongman. The undisputed leader of a personalist autocracy where no other institution — no other power — can meaningfully oppose him or his designs. Recall his promise to be “a dictator on Day 1.” Perhaps he means Day 100 and beyond, too.
Cooperation with a leader of this ilk is little more than appeasement. It is little more than a license for him to go faster and push further — to sprint toward the consolidated authoritarian government of Trump’s dreams (and those, especially, of his most reactionary allies and advisers, with their eyes on Hungary, Turkey and even Russia and China).
The individuals and institutions inclined to work with Trump thought they would stabilize the political situation. Instead, the main effect of going along to get along was to do the opposite: to give the White House the space it needed to pursue its maximalist aims.
But all the while, there was real weakness. There were the tens of millions of Americans who voted against Trump, still opposed him and remained dismayed by his lawless cruelty. There was the clear disorganization of the Trump administration, the fact that it was split among rival power centers and that Trump did not, in the four years between his first and second terms, become more able or adept at managing the executive branch. He looked exclusively for loyalty, and the result — after his initial blitz of executive orders — was haphazard incompetence across a number of fronts.
For as much as Trump has tried to project himself as an unstoppable force, the truth is that he is as vulnerable as he’s ever been. All it took was real political leadership to demonstrate the extent to which the Trump White House was more of a paper tiger than it might have looked at first glance.
It helped that the White House overplayed its hand again and again. When institutions like Columbia University effectively surrendered to the administration, they did not buy themselves grace so much as they were forced into Trump’s service as agents of his will. There would be no bargaining. There was no deal you could cut to save your Cloud City. You could either submit or resist.
It is in the past two months that we have finally begun to see resistance. Ordinary people began boycotts and took to the streets in large protests. Lawyers challenged the administration on virtually every one of the president’s illegal and unconstitutional executive orders. And Democrats began to tap into and amplify grass-roots anti-Trump energy, from the anti-oligarchy rallies of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Booker’s record-breaking speech on the Senate floor. The courts have clearly taken note of the shift in public sentiment, delivering major defeats and decrying the president’s attacks on cherished American liberties.
The Trump administration is still pushing to realize its vision — and high-profile prisoners like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk still face deportation — but the administration is no longer on a glide path to success. It could even careen toward failure. By exercising political leadership, by acting like an opposition, both lawmakers and ordinary citizens have turned smooth sailing into rough waters for the administration. And while there is still much to do (Abrego Garcia has not been released, there are reports that the administration has sent at least one detainee to Rwanda, and there is also at least one person who is missing from all records), it’s also true that Trump and his people are not an unstoppable force.
Trump wants us to be demoralized. He wants his despotic plans to be a fait accompli. They will be if no one stands in the way. But every time we — and especially those with power and authority — make ourselves into obstacles, we also make it a little less likely that the administration’s authoritarian fantasy becomes our reality.
DOGE loses its biggest advocate as Musk exits Washington
Sophia Cai, Rachael Bade and Paul McLeary – April 23, 2025
Elon Musk’s claim that his job in Washington is “mostly done” may calm Tesla shareholders — but his departure could sap the Department of Government Efficiency of its disruptive energy even as it continues to make major cuts to the federal workforce.
In an effort to reassure rattled Tesla shareholders after a bruising first-quarter earnings call, Musk told investors this week that his around-the-clock involvement in DOGE will soon be scaled back to just a day or two per week.
The message to the markets was clear: Musk is refocusing on his companies. But his public exit from Washington also leaves DOGE without a clear driver, potentially defanging a group that spent the first 100 days of Trump’s second term tearing through agencies with nearly unlimited momentum. Without Musk’s constant hovering around President Donald Trump, DOGE may not have the same firepower it once did and agency heads could now have more authority to run their agencies and implement cost-cutting efforts at their own speed.
For months, Musk’s physical presence at the White House and attendance at Cabinet meetings served as both sword and shield — giving cover to DOGE staffers, intimidating holdouts, and demanding that the operation move forward at a breakneck speed. “It is rare to have a Cabinet-level secretary pushing for you operationally and politically,” said a Trump official, who, like others in this report, was granted anonymity to speak freely.
And for a long time, a lot of people in the White House weren’t sure how to talk to Musk when DOGE took drastic actions like demanding the “five things” emails from federal employees justifying their jobs or moving to make cuts so deep that they could hurt Trump politically, such as reductions to the Social Security Administration’s operations or firing veterans. White House officials felt that only Trump could say no to Musk.
“How do you tell the world’s richest man to stop and get in line?” a different White House official said last month.
But when Musk takes a step back, the same reluctance to counter the billionaire tech mogul will not extend to DOGE staff, many of whom are now embedded across agencies and serve at the pleasure of agency heads. Already, senior White House officials have taken steps to curb DOGE’s reach, leading the charge to get Musk to drop his goal of cutting $1 trillion to only $150 billion for fear of cutting too close to the bone.
In terms of day to day operations, insiders say Musk’s reduced involvement won’t dramatically alter how DOGE operates at least on paper. “This won’t be a big change from the current situation,” one senior Trump administration official close to the effort said, “because Musk is doing a lot already and [DOGE staff] already try to catch him at specific times.”
The operation that Musk has built has now burrowed into nearly every corner of the executive branch, with most DOGE staffers serving at agencies as political appointees without a time limit on their employment. Others are based out of the General Services Administration, now a DOGE nerve center led by software entrepreneur and Musk ally Stephen Ehikian, continuing a quiet but steady purge of small, independent agencies. (Just this week, it began shutting down the 300-person Millenium Challenge Corporation.)
Musk’s lieutenants, Antonio Gracias and Steve Davis, remain involved in leading the initiative, giving pointers to DOGE staff embedded across agencies as they continue to help execute the reductions in force, an ongoing months-long process.
DOGE’s original mandate — reduce waste and fraud — has since extended far beyond simply cost-cutting. DOGE has been heavily involved in other Trump administration priorities, like immigration data collection for mass deportation planning, Trump’s shipbuilding agenda, and even the implementation of $5 million per piece “Gold Card” visas, according to five people familiar with DOGE’s movements.
Still, Musk’s public pullback will come as relief to some Cabinet officials who have had tensions with the billionaire and DOGE around the personnel cuts.
Indeed, senior administration officials were not surprised by Musk’s announcement on the Tesla call. One, who is a big fan of Musk, said it’s become increasingly clear in recent days that the tech tycoon is souring on Washington. His frustration with the lack of control is palpable, the person said — as he’s used to getting his way and making the final calls with his businesses.
Instead, Musk has seen his influence waning and has been brought to heel by other Cabinet secretaries and people in the White House in recent months, as the insistence on coordinating their efforts has slowed his break-neck speed.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrangled control back from DOGE last week by firing DOGE staffer Gavin Kliger and installing a new IRS commissioner last week. IRS firings which were expected to begin last week and go out on a biweekly basis still have not materialized.
That most recent run-in with Bessent in the White House, first reported by Axios, has only seemed to make him more Washington wary, the senior officials mentioned above added.
At the Department of Defense, Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly praised DOGE’s work but expressed unease privately about early plans to potentially cut tens of thousands of civilian personnel, one person familiar with the private conversations said. DOGE staffers have been in the building for weeks and have set up shop in the Navy’s offices, where they’re taking a new look at the service’s troubled shipbuilding efforts and preparing recommendations for what new programs the service should cut and which it should keep developing, according to a second official.
When asked to respond, a senior defense official said that Hegseth is “leading several initiatives to meet the president’s intent, to include removing DEI from the department and reviewing fitness and training standards across the services,” among other things.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy struck a defiant tone earlier this month during a visit to the FAA Tech Center in New Jersey: “When I think of DOGE cutting things, I don’t know about that elsewhere, but we actually build things here,” he said. “You can’t cut your way to a new road. You can’t cut your way to a new bridge. You can’t cut your way into a new air traffic control system.”
Even as Musk promises to scale back his involvement, there are no signs that he’ll completely disengage. Far from it — White House officials say he and Trump have such a strong personal friendship that he’s expected to be in Washington at least once a week.
At his other companies, he had a habit of requesting and attending weekly meetings for ongoing projects, weighing in with his ideas and granular feedback. He attended weekly brainstorming sessions for Tesla’s Optimus robot and received weekly updates on America PAC’s voter contact metrics during the presidential campaign.
“I think I’ll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the president would like me to do and as long as it is useful,” Musk said on the earnings call.
Make Russia Medieval Again! How Putin is seeking to remold society, with a little help from Ivan the Terrible
Dina Khapaeva, Georgia Institute of Technology – April 22, 2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin has draped himself in old-fashioned, medieval conceptions of Russian history to add symbolic weight to his authoritarian government. AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko
Published in March 2025, the textbook’s co-author Nina Ostanina, chair of the State Duma Committee for the Protection of the Family, claims that it will teach students “traditional moral values” that will improve “the demographic situation in the country” as part of a “Family Studies” course that was rolled out in the 2024-2025 school year.
But some of those lessons for modern living come from a less-than-modern source. Among the materials borrowed from in “My Family” is the 16th century “Domostroi” – a collection of rules for maintaining patriarchal domestic order. It was written, supposedly, by Sylvester, a monk-tutor of czar Ivan the Terrible.
Unsurprisingly, some teachings from “Domostroi” seem out-of-keeping with today’s sensibilities. For example, it states that it is the right of a father to coerce, if needed by force, his household – at the time, this would refer to both relatives and slaves – in accordance with Orthodox dogmas.
“Husbands should teach their wives with love and exemplary instruction,” reads one of the Domostroi quotations repeated in the textbook.
“Wives ask their husbands about strict order, how to save their souls, please God and their husbands, arrange their home well, and submit to their husbands in all matters; and what the husband orders, they should agree with love and carry out according to his commands,” reads another extract
The use of “Domostroi” in the textbook both references the past while evoking the current government’s politics of decriminalizing family violence. A 2017 law, for example, removed nonaggravated “battery of close persons” from the list of criminal offenses.
It also fits a wider pattern. As a scholar of historical memory, I have observed that references to the Russian Middle Ages are part of the Kremlin’s broader politics of using the medieval past to justify current agendas, something I have termed “political neomedievalism.”
Indeed, President Vladimir Putin’s government is actively prioritizing initiatives that use medieval Russia as a model for the country’s future. In doing so, the Kremlin unites a long-nurtured dream of the Russian far right with a broader quest for the fulfillment of Russian imperial ambitions.
But the group’s name evokes the first reign of brutal state terror in Russian history. The Oprichnina was a state policy unleashed by Ivan the Terrible from 1565 to 1572 to establish his unrestrained power over the country. The oprichniks were Ivan’s personal guard, who attached a dog’s head and a broom to their saddles to show that they were the czar’s “dogs” who swept treason away.
Chroniclers and foreign travelers left accounts of the sadistic tortures and mass executions that were conducted with Ivan’s participation. The oprichniks raped and dismembered women, flayed or boiled men alive and burned children. In this frenzy of violence, they slaughtered many thousands of innocent people.
Ivan’s reign led to a period known as the “Time of Troubles,” marked by famine and military defeat. Some scholars estimate that by its end, Russia lost nearly two-thirds of its population.
Ivan IV, czar of Russia from 1547 to 1584, known as Ivan the Terrible. Rischgitz/Getty Images
Throughout Russian history, Ivan the Terrible – who among his other crimes murdered his eldest son and had the head of Russian Orthodox Church strangled for dissent – was remembered as a repulsive tyrant.
However, since the mid-2000s, when the Russian government under Putin took an increasingly authoritarian turn, Ivan and his terror have undergone a state-driven process of reevalution.
The Kremlin and its far-right proxies now paint Ivan as a great statesman and devout Russian Orthodox Christian who laid the foundations of the Russian Empire.
Prior to that alteration of Russian historical memory, only one other Russian head of state had held Ivan in such high esteem: Josef Stalin.
Even so, no public monuments to Ivan existed until 2016, when Putin’s officials unveiled the first of three bronze statues dedicated to the terrible czar. Yet, the cinematic propaganda outmatched the commemorations of Ivan in stone. By my count, from 2009 to 2022, 12 state-sponsored films and TV series paying tribute to Ivan the Terrible and his rule aired in prime time on Russian TV channels.
Russian revisionism
The post-Soviet rehabilitation of Ivan the Terrible goes back to the writings of Ivan Snychov, the metropolitan, or high ranking bishop, of Saint Petersburg and Ladoga. His book, “The Autocracy of the Spirit,” published in 1994, gave rise to a fundamentalist sect known as “Tsarebozhie,” or neo-Oprichnina. Tsarebozhie calls for a return to an autocratic monarchy, a society of orders and the canonization of all Russian czars. The belief that Russian state power is “sacred” – a central dogma of the sect – was reaffirmed on April 18, 2025, by Alexander Kharichev, an official in Putin’s Presidential Administration, in an article that has been likened to an instruction manual for the “builder of Putinism.”
The canonization of Ivan the Terrible specifically is a top priority for members of this sect. And while the Russian Orthodox Church has yet to canonize Ivan, Tsarebozhie have garnered significant support from Russian priests, politicians and laypersons alike. Their efforts sit alongside Putin’s yearslong push to give public support for Ivan. Not by chance, Putin’s minister of foreign affairs, Sergei Lavrov, reportedly named Ivan the Terrible among one of Putin’s three “most trusted advisers.”
In Snychov’s worldview, Russians are a messianic people, part of an imperial nation that is uniquely responsible for preventing Satan’s domination of the world. In his explicitly antisemitic pseudo-history of Russia, the Oprichnina is described as a “saintly monastic order” led by a “pious tsar.”
Since the 1930s, when Stalin used Ivan to justify his own repressions, Ivan and Stalin – the Oprichnina and Stalinism – became historical doubles. The whitewashing of Ivan by the Kremlin goes hand in hand with Putin’s rehabilitation of Stalin as commander in chief of the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II.
Promoting the cult of the “Great Patriotic War” – as the Second World War has officially been called since the Soviet period – has been central to Putin’s militarization of Russian society and part of the propaganda effort to foster support for the invasion of Ukraine. The remorse for the loss of empire and desire to restore it underlies Moscow’s discourse over the past two decades.
Putin’s neomedieval politics have adopted the Russian far-right belief that the country should return to the traditions of medieval Rus, as it existed before the Westernization reforms undertaken by Peter the Great in the early 18th century.
Over the past 15 years, Russian TV viewers have received an average of two state-funded movies per month, advertising the benefits of Russian medieval society and praising Russian medieval warlords.
This use of Russian historical memory has allowed Putin to normalize his use of state violence abroad and at home and mobilize support for his suppression of the opposition. The major goal of political neomedievalism is to legitimize huge social and economic inequalities in post-Soviet society as a part of Russia’s national heritage.
To serve the purpose of undermining the rule of law and democratic freedoms, as my research demonstrates, the Kremlin and its proxies have promoted the Russian Middle Ages – with its theocratic monarchy, society of estates, slavery, serfdom and repression – as a state-sponsored alternative to democracy.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Dina Khapaeva, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dina Khapaeva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The SAVE Act would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to first “provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship” in person, like a passport or birth certificate.
The House already passed an identical bill in July 2024, also along partisan lines, with the GOP largely supporting the legislation. At that time, the Senate killed the bill. With a now GOP-controlled Senate, and a Republican in the White House, the SAVE Act could become law before 2025 ends.
Voting rights experts and advocacy organizations have detailed how the legislationcould suppress voting. In part, they say it would particularly create barriers in low-income and minority communities. People in such communities often lack the forms of ID acceptable under the SAVE Act for a variety of reasons, including socioeconomic factors.
As of now, at least 9% of voting-age American citizens – approximately 21 million people – do not even have driver’s licenses, let alone proof of citizenship. In spite of this, many legislators support the bill as a means of eliminating noncitizen voting in elections.
As a legal scholar who studies, among other things, foreign interferencein elections, I find considerations about the potential effects of the SAVE Act important, especially given how rare it is that a noncitizen actually votes in federal elections.
Yet, it is equally crucial to consider a more fundamental question: is the SAVE Act even constitutional?
The SAVE Act would forbid state election officials from registering an individual to vote in federal elections unless this person “provides documentary proof of United States citizenship.”
So, should the SAVE Act become law, if a person turns 18 or moves between states and wishes to register to vote in federal elections in their new home, they would likely be turned away if they do not have any such documents readily available. At best, they could still fill out a registration form, but would need to mail in acceptable proof of citizenship.
For married people with changed last names, among others, questions remain about whether birth certificates could even count as acceptable proof of citizenship for them.
The Constitution says little about voting rights
Despite the national conversation the SAVE Act has sparked, it is unclear whether Congress even has the power to enact it. This is the key constitutional question.
The U.S. Constitution imposes no citizenship requirement when it comes to voting. The original text of the Constitution, in fact, said very little about the right to vote. It was not until legislators passed subsequent amendments, starting after the Civil War up through the 1970s, that the Constitution even explicitly prohibited voting laws that discriminate on account of race, sex or age.
Who, then, gets to decide whether someone is qualified to vote? No matter the election, the answer is always the same – the states.
Indeed, by constitutional design, the states are tasked with setting voter-eligibility requirements – a product of our federalist system. For state and local elections, the 10th Amendment grants states the power to regulate their internal elections as they see fit.
States also get to decide who may vote in federal elections, which include both presidential and congressional elections.
When it comes to presidential elections, for instance, states have – as I have previously written – exclusive power under the Constitution’s Electors Clause to decide how to conduct presidential elections within their borders, including who gets to vote in them.
The states wield similar authority for congressional elections. Namely, according to Article I of the Constitution and the Constitution’s 17th Amendment, if someone can vote in their state’s legislative elections, they are entitled to vote in its congressional elections, too.
Conversely, the Constitution provides Congress zero authority to govern voter-eligibility requirements in federal elections. Indeed, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling on the Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council case, the court asserted that nothing in the Constitution “lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.”
Is the SAVE Act constitutional?
The SAVE Act presents a constitutional dilemma. By requiring individuals to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections, the SAVE Act is implicitly saying that someone must be a U.S. citizen to vote in federal elections.
In other words, Congress would be instituting a qualification to vote, a power that the Constitution leaves exclusively to the states.
Indeed, while all states currently limit voting rights to citizens, legal noncitizen voting is not without precedent. As multiplescholarshave noted, at least 19 states extended voting rights to free male “inhabitants,” including noncitizens, starting from our country’s founding up to and throughout the 19th century.
Today, over 20 municipalities across the country, as well as the District of Columbia, allow permanent noncitizen residents to vote in local elections.
Any state these days could similarly extend the right to vote in state and federal elections to permanent noncitizen residents. This is within their constitutional prerogative. And if this were to happen, there could be a conflict between that state’s voter-eligibility laws and the SAVE Act.
Yet, in this instance, where Congress has no actual authority to implement voter qualifications, the SAVE Act would seem to have no constitutional leg on which to stand.
When it comes to the constitutionality of the SAVE Act, though, proponents simply assert that Congress is acting within its purview.
Specifically, many proponents have cited the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, as support for that assertion. Sen. Mike Lee, for example, explicitly referenced the Elections Clause when defending the SAVE Act earlier in 2025.
But the Elections Clause only grants Congress authority to regulate election procedures, not voter qualifications. The Supreme Court explicitly stated this in the Inter Tribal Council ruling.
Congress can, for instance, require states to adopt a uniform federal voter registration form, and even include a citizenship question on said form. What it cannot do, however, is implement a non-negotiable mandate that effectively tells the states they can never allow any noncitizen to vote in a federal election.
For now, the SAVE Act is simply legislation. Should the Senate pass it, President Donald Trump will almost assuredly sign it into law, given, among other factors, his March 2025 executive order that says prospective voters need to show proof of citizenship before they register to vote in federal elections. Once that happens, the courts will have to reckon with the SAVE Act’s legitimacy within the country’s constitutional design.
Can voters use Real ID to satisfy SAVE Act voting rules, as Byron Daniels said?
Grace Abels – April 21, 2025
Even Rep. Byron Donalds’ state of Florida does not show citizenship on its Real ID driver’s licenses, so they wouldn’t provide the proof of citizenship that would be needed to register to vote under the proposed SAVE Act.
Byron Donald’sStatement: Under the SAVE Act, “as long as you have a Real ID … it should be easy for you to register to vote.”
Responding to concerns about a bill that would require proof of citizenship to vote, some Republicans have said an eligible voter needs only a Real ID.
But in 44 states, that’s not a solution.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House on April 10 by a 220-208 vote. A priority of House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump, it would require in-person proof of citizenship, such as a U.S. passport or a combination of a driver’s license and birth certificate, to register to vote.Republicans say the SAVE Act — which has a high 60-vote hurdle to clear in the Senate — is necessary to ensure that noncitizens don’t vote in U.S. elections. Federal laws already prohibit noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and cases of noncitizens voting are extremely rare.
Democrats denounced the bill as a threat to voting rights, criticizing the required paperwork as burdensome; about half of Americans don’t have passports, for example. Republicans accused Democrats of exaggerating the burden.
“To the people who are concerned about married women being able to register (to vote) there’s this thing in the United States, every state does it now, called Real ID,” said Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., in an April 10 NewsNation interview. “As long as you have a Real ID, which virtually every American has to have today, it should be easy for you to register to vote.”
Real IDs are federally compliant, state-issued driver’s licenses or identification cards that require documentation including a Social Security card and proof of citizenship or legal immigration status to obtain. Congress passed a 2005 law requiring state-issued IDs to meet federal minimum security standards following a 9/11 Commission recommendation.
A Real ID card is typically marked with a black or gold star. About 56% of American IDs were Real ID compliant in January 2024, but many people are rushing to get Real IDs before a May 7 deadline after which a non-Real ID driver’s license, for example, won’t be sufficient to board domestic flights. (Some states, such as Illinois, are saying “Real ID can wait” because of high demand.)
However, not every Real ID meets SAVE Act requirements to prove citizenship. The SAVE Act accepts only Real IDs that indicate whether a person is a citizen, which most do not.
Further, Real IDs can be issued to noncitizens with lawful status, including permanent residence, temporary protected status, refugees, asylum applicants and people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Homeland Security Department’s website says.
Five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — offer a version of Real ID that indicates whether a person is a U.S. citizen, called an enhanced driver’s license. These licenses are offered at an additional fee, so not every Real ID in those states is compliant with the SAVE Act. Homeland Security officials have been working since 2008 to bring the enhanced ID program to all states.
Another state, Idaho, in 2023 began offering IDs with an optional citizenship marker, although it’s unclear whether all are Real ID compliant.
PolitiFact found no evidence that the remaining states issue Real IDs that comply with the citizenship proof required by the SAVE Act.
Thirty-six states already have some form of voter ID law requiring identity verification at the polls, but the SAVE Act would implement hurdles in every state at an earlier step — voter registration. For most states, that is new terrain.
“There is only one state in the U.S., Arizona, that has experience with proof-of-citizenship to register to vote,” said Lori Minnite, a Rutgers University political science professor and expert on voter fraud.
For state and local elections, Arizona accepts state IDs as proof of citizenship after comparing the driver’s license number to existing information in its Department of Transportation database. The physical IDs are no different than those issued to noncitizens. It is unclear whether such an ID, only distinguishable from a noncitizen ID when referenced against internal state data, would count as “indicating” citizenship under the SAVE Act.
The SAVE Act’s author, Central Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy acknowledged in a recent hearing that only a few states offer compliant licenses, and he hoped more would follow: “We believe, right, that the structure is put in place now that allow — I think there’s at least five states that do have the citizenship status as part of the Real ID — encourage more states to do so, right? That would be part of the goal here.”
In 2023, Ohio passed a law to offer enhanced driver’s licenses, but it is not yet accepting applications. Iowa and Montana are considering bills to add a citizenship marker on IDs.
Neither Donalds nor Roy responded to requests for comment.
Beyond Real ID, other ways to verify identity pose challenges
For the majority of Americans who don’t live in Idaho or one of the few states with enhanced IDs, the SAVE Act says they can prove citizenship with a valid U.S. passport; a military ID card and a military service record showing place of birth; or a government issued photo-ID that shows place of birth.Those documents, or a Real ID that indicates citizenship, are the only ones that can prove citizenship on their own under the bill. Without one of those, a person must show a driver’s license or identification along with another document showing birthplace, such as a birth certificate, naturalization certificate, consular report of birth abroad or final adoption decree.
All documents must be presented in person.
Any mismatch between documents and someone’s current identification cards could disrupt voter registration. Mismatches are common for people who change their names following marriage.
In the same hearing, Roy said the SAVE Act would not affect people currently registered to vote.
He added: “If they have an intervening event or if the states want to clean the rolls, people would come forward to register to demonstrate their citizenship so we could convert our system over some reasonable time to a citizenship-based registration system.”
Jonathan Diaz, director of voting, advocacy and partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization that supports voting rights, said he believes the SAVE Act would apply to any updates to current registration or reregistration.
As prominentDemocrats warned that the billwouldmake voting harder formillions of married women, SAVE Act supporters said the bill addresses the needs of people with name changes by leaving it up to the states to decide what documentation would be required to resolve document discrepancies. It directs each state to “establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation” to establish citizenship if the person’s documents don’t include matching information.
Minnite called this language ambiguous: “Could a married woman who does not have a passport and who changed her name use a marriage certificate to prove her citizenship? The SAVE Act is not clear.”Diaz said, “Different states could have different standards and different degrees of proof needed, which will be really hard for voters to navigate.”
PolitiFact’s ruling
Donalds said under the SAVE Act, “as long as you have a Real ID … it should be easy for you to register to vote.” Most Real IDs are not compliant with the citizenship proof required under the SAVE Act. PolitiFact identified just six states that offer Real IDs that show citizenship, and five of them require an additional fee for that.
People in the remaining 44 states would need other forms of documentation to register to vote under the SAVE Act, such as a U.S. passport, a military service ID and record, or a birth certificate with a driver’s license.
Donalds’ statement has an element of truth because in a handful of states, people have access to Real IDs that would be sufficient to register to vote under the SAVE Act. But he ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate the statement Mostly False.
PolitiFact staff researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
Nearly 300 scientists apply for French academic program amid Trump cuts in U.S.
Alana Wise – April 18, 2025
Students, researchers and demonstrators rally during a protest against the Trump administration’s funding cuts on research, health and higher education at the University of California Los Angeles on April 8.Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images
More than 2,500 scientists fled russia after putin invaded Ukraine.
A French university courting U.S.-basedacademics said it has already received nearly 300 applications for researchers seeking “refugee status” amid President Trump’s elimination of funding for several scientific programs.
Last month, Aix-Marseille University, one of the country’s oldest and largest universities, announced it was accepting applications for its Safe Place For Science program, which it said offers “a safe and stimulating environment for scientists wishing to pursue their research in complete freedom.”
This week, Aix-Marseille said it had received 298 applications, and 242 of them are eligible and currently up for review. Of the eligible applicants, 135 are American, 45 have a dual nationality, 17 are French and 45 are from other countries, the university said.Sponsor Message
“I am pleased that this request for the creation of scientific refugee status has found both media and political traction,”university President Éric Berton said in a statement.
The public research university said there is an even split between male and female applicants, with backgrounds from various prestigious U.S. institutions including Johns Hopkins University, NASA, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Yale and Stanford. About 20 Americans will be accepted into the program to begin in June.
“We at Aix-Marseille University are convinced that mobilization to address the challenges facing scientific research must be collective in France and Europe,” Berton said.
The Trump administration has prioritized aggressive spending cuts and federal workforce reduction, leading to a battle for America’s best and brightest.
Already, for example, universities and medical research facilities are set to lose billions in federal funding under the National Institutes of Health. And rollbacks on federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs have compromised research ranging from climate change to biomedical research.
Aix-Marseille is not the only European institution hoping to capitalize on America’s brain drain.
Last month, France’s CentraleSupélec announced a $3.2 million grant to help finance American research that had been halted in the states. And Netherlands Minister of Education, Culture and Science Eppo Bruins wrote in a letter to parliament that he requested to set up a fund aimed at bringing top international scientists to the Netherlands.
There is some evidence that these entreaties are reaching curious ears.
Last month in the journal Nature, more than 1,200 respondents identifying as scientists cited Trump’s funding cuts as reasons they were considering moving to Canada or Europe.
This trumpusk administration is first of all, not civilized. And if it were, it wouldn’t make any difference. vladimir putin and the money laundering trump aligned russian oligharchs, want to destroy America’s Constitutional Democracy, just at they’ve destroyed their own nation. And trump and a large number of MAGANAZI republi-cons in our congress are paid operatives of this fascist, evil, autocratic cabal. WTFU merica www.tarbabys.com
Inside Elon Musk’s Gleeful Destruction of the Government
Miles Klee, Andrew Perez, Asawin Suebsaeng and Meagan Jordan – April 10, 2025
Ben Vizzachero had his dream job, working as a wildlife biologist with the Los Padres National Forest in California. He was moving up the ladder, had recently received a positive performance review, and was “making the world a better place,” he says.
Yet, over Presidents’ Day weekend in February, Donald Trump’s administration told Vizzachero he was being let go for his “performance.” Vizzachero was one of many thousands of “probationary” federal workers who were baselessly fired by Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency as part of Trump’s effort to purge the federal workforce and make it more MAGA.
It was crushing. “My job is my identity,” Vizzachero says. “How I’ve defined myself since I was five years old is that I love birds and bird-watching.” Talking with Rolling Stone in March, following his firing, he wondered what would happen to his health insurance and whether he would need to move in with his parents.
When a Democratic lawmaker invited Vizzachero as a guest to Trump’s joint address to Congress in March, he found himself seated near Musk. He took the opportunity to confront the world’s richest man. According to Vizzachero, he described his job to Musk and asked: “Am I waste?”
He says Musk, “with a very condescending smirk,” hit him with a line from the 1999 movie Office Space: “What would you say you do here?”
It was a dubious callback to the scene in which a pair of management consultants interview a worker and force him to justify his job before he’s fired. Like countless Wall Street traders who took the wrong lesson from Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” speech, Musk missed the point of Office Space: that corporate culture is dehumanizing, and bosses like him are odious cretins.
Soon after Trump’s and Republicans’ 2024 wins, which Musk supported with $290 million in political spending, the Tesla CEO publicly mused about using this line from Office Space on federal workers. He posted it in November on X, the social media platform he owns, with a laugh-crying emoji, resharing his earlier post of an AI-generated image in which he’s seated at a conference table behind a placard that reads “DOGE.” Two weeks later, Musk announced, “I rewatched Office Space tonight for the 5th time to prepare for @DOGE!” The billionaire reportedly had a DOGE T-shirt made, emblazoned with his favorite line. And one weekend in February, Musk threatened to fire every federal worker who failed to respond to an email asking them, “What did you do last week?”
Musk and the White House did not respond to Rolling Stone’s request for comment.
“The American people are saying, you know what, Elon Musk? We believe you to be a liar.”
Everett Kelley
With DOGE, Musk has gleefully banished tens of thousands of federal employees, canceled lifesaving aid, and repeatedly threatened America’s safety-net programs, all as part of a purported hunt for waste, fraud, and abuse. He’s governed as an out-of-touch corporate villain, laughing about this carnage while partying, posting, delivering big payments to voters (although the amounts mean virtually nothing to him), and cashing in on new contracts and business opportunities — sometimes appearing high out of his mind. Even administration officials and Trump loyalists on Capitol Hill joke about the latest outrages of “Prime Minister Musk.” At every turn in his crusade of destruction, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO has dared the courts and a weak Democratic opposition to stop him.
But it didn’t take long for ordinary Americans to get pissed off, with protests against DOGE, Musk, and his companies erupting nationwide. “The American people are saying, you know what, Elon Musk?” says Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, a federal labor union that has brought legal challenges against the Trump administration on behalf of the more than 820,000 workers across government agencies it represents. “We’re not buying what you’re selling. We believe you to be a liar.”
Organizers have mounted a “Tesla Takedown” campaign, with tens of thousands around the globe showing up at dealerships to condemn DOGE, according to the group. They have encouraged Tesla owners to sell their cars and stockholders to dump their shares, since much of Musk’s wealth comes from his stake in the electric-vehicle manufacturer.
“People have asked, ‘What is DOGE?’ ” says a retiree at an anti-Tesla protest in Los Angeles in March, explaining that she and her husband are trying to “educate people” about the harm Musk’s pet project is causing. Passing motorists honk in support of the approximately 25 people gathered at a Tesla center despite the rain. Some hold signs denouncing Musk as a Nazi (he has denied any association with Nazism), while another poster at the rally simply reads: “Not Sure About This Elon Guy.”
“There is a growing movement to divest, Tesla stock is in a precipitous decline,” says actor and writer Alex Winter, who launched Tesla Takedown with other activists in February. “Things are moving in the right direction.”
‘Crazy Uncle Elon’
Prior to Trump’s inauguration, observers weren’t sure how seriously to take the idea of a Musk-led government-efficiency commission, but the billionaire and DOGE have been at the vanguard of Trump’s shockingly lawless second administration.
Musk has spearheaded the president’s purge of the federal workforce and his efforts to consolidate information and power over federal funds — despite never being elected, appointed, or confirmed to hold such a pivotal role. Musk is technically a “special government employee,” a designation that allowed him to bypass a Senate confirmation process and avoid publicly reporting his financial holdings.
DOGE was created by renaming the U.S. Digital Service and moving it under the executive office in an apparent bid to circumvent public-record laws. The ethics watchdog American Oversight has sued to force the group to comply with those laws and preserve materials subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. “The public deserves to know the full extent of the damage,” said interim Executive Director Chioma Chukwu in a statement on an April court order requiring DOGE to fulfill this legal obligation.
Trump and Musk have tried to grant the new office expansive authorities never envisioned by Congress, including the ability to “impound,” or freeze, funds appropriated by lawmakers. Experts say the arrangement is unconstitutional on several levels — as are DOGE’s mass firings and its attempts to shutter or pause the work of whole government agencies. A lawsuit brought by personnel of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) laid out many of these arguments, contending that “Musk has acted as an officer of the United States without having been duly appointed to such a role,” and that DOGE “acted to eliminate USAID, a federal agency created by statute, where only Congress may do so.” A federal judge in Maryland agreed, finding that Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution as they dismantled the office. Another judge ordered the Trump administration to rehire thousands of probationary employees terminated by DOGE. (As of publication, the legal battle is ongoing.)
Vizzachero, the wildlife biologist, was among those rehired. The administration is still moving ahead with even larger mass firings.
“I am become meme. There’s living the dream, and living the meme, and that’s what’s happening.”
Elon Musk
Musk and his lieutenants — many pulled from his own companies, others young techie college dropouts lacking in government experience — have demanded unprecedented access to sensitive personal information and government payment systems, leading to still more legal challenges. Federal judges havefound that Trump’s administration likely violated privacy and administrative laws when it gave DOGE sweeping access to personal, private data held by the Social Security Administration, the Treasury Department, and the Education Department. Regardless, DOGE has continued to operate with the same playbook Musk used after acquiring Twitter, showing a zeal for speedy terminations and little regard for how departments function.
Throughout the chaos and confusion of Trump’s return to power, Musk also strove to cultivate the image he’s long maintained as a workhorse, showman, and expert in varied fields. He reportedly told friends he was sleeping at DOGE offices, rehashing claims he previously made about sleeping on a Tesla factory floor. He’s continually posted grandiose and often inaccurate estimates of how much money DOGE has saved.
And he seemed to relish his role as an all-powerful agitator. Musk began regularly smearing his enemies as “retards” on X and targeting judges who ruled against the administration or blocked DOGE’s incursions. He grew bold enough to describe Social Security, long considered untouchable, as “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”
Onstage at Trump’s post-inauguration event, Musk threw a straight-armed salute to the crowd, then responded to the ensuing backlash with a series of puns on names of high-ranking Nazis from Adolf Hitler’s inner circle. Speaking virtually to the far-right German political party Alternative für Deutschland, Musk argued that Germany had placed “too much of a focus on past guilt.”
At the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, Musk waved around a chain saw he said would slice through “bureaucracy” — this on the same day that his former partner Grimes publicly begged him on X to respond to her about a medical crisis experienced by one of their three children.
“I am become meme,” he said onstage. “I’m living the meme. You know, it’s like, there’s living the dream, and there’s living the meme, and that’s pretty much what’s happening.”
The bizarre CPAC appearance prompted speculation about Musk’s state of mind and recreational drug use, as he was wearing sunglasses inside and had difficulty stringing sentences together. People close to Musk have told The Wall Street Journal they have known him to use illegal drugs, including LSD, cocaine, Ecstasy, and mushrooms — a source of concern for some of the board members overseeing his companies. (Musk has denied using illegal drugs, though he has spoken about his use of prescription ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic.)
Some senior Trump administration officials and Cabinet members have found themselves deeply annoyed by Musk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, three people familiar with the matter say, hasn’t hidden his disdain for Musk, with some State Department officials nicknaming the Tesla billionaire “Crazy Uncle Elon,” two of those sources tell Rolling Stone.
“I have been in the same room with Elon, and he always tries to be funny. And he’s not funny. Like, at all,” says a senior Trump administration official. “He makes these jokes and little asides and smiles and then looks almost hurt if you don’t lap up his humor. I keep using the word ‘annoying’; a lot of people who have to deal with him do. But the word doesn’t do the situation justice. Elon just thinks he’s smarter than everyone else in the room and acts like it, even when it’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
Musk has gnawed at the patience of an array of high-ranking administration officials, to the point that — according to this official and two others — Trump lieutenants have walked out of meetings and earnestly asked one another if they thought Musk was high. Administration officials joked to one another about subjecting Musk to mandatory drug testing, which Musk himself has said would be a “great idea” for federal employees. (A lawyer for Musk has said he’s “regularly and randomly drug-tested at SpaceX and has never failed a test.”)
“Talking to the guy is sometimes like listening to really rusty nails on a chalkboard,” says the senior Trump administration official, who adds that Musk is not much of a team player, either. “He’s just the most irritating person I’ve ever had to deal with, and that is saying something.”
‘Why Do These Fucking Kids Know This?’
With Trump’s blessing, Musk has engineered a climate of fear that has infected nearly every corner of the U.S. executive branch. When DOGE’s “nerd army” has moved to take over federal agencies, if their demands are not immediately met, Musk’s minions have snapped at senior government officials: “Do I need to call Elon?”
The emails that Musk has had sent to federal employees have been so intentionally dickish that several have produced an avalanche of what one Trump administration official called “very rude” pranks and replies. Some of these crass responses include — per messages reviewed by Rolling Stone — graphic sexual images, including content involving urine and feces.
“I know Elon probably won’t see it, but I hope he sees it,” says one now-former federal employee, who says they replied to one such email with an image of a human butthole.
Musk is apparently amused by the unrest. Aside from his public memeing, when he has privately messaged associates and confidants about reports from federal staffers about how their lives have been wrecked, the Tesla CEO has been known to react with laugh-crying emojis, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter.
The tech oligarch has repeatedly warned that millions of Americans over the age of 100 are receiving benefits — a flagrant misrepresentation of agency data. Trump has run with this falsehood, too, even as his acting Social Security commissioner has acknowledged that these people “are not necessarily receiving benefits.”
Musk has claimed there are “extreme levels of fraud” in Social Security — though he and DOGE haven’t provided any evidence. He’s argued, without basis, that hundreds of billions in fraud per year are going to undocumented immigrants from entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The constant griping about entitlements is making an impact: When people lose their Social Security benefits, they are blamingMusk and DOGE.
Two administration officials and another Trump adviser tell Rolling Stone that when Musk has publicly decried Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme,” some close to Trump have tried to diplomatically remind Musk that this could be damaging politically.
“He’s the most irritating person I’ve ever had to deal with, and that’s saying something.”
Senior Trump Administration Official
“We like winning elections, and you may have noticed that a lot of our voters are elderly,” the Trump adviser notes. The complaint from Trumpland brass about Musk’s inability to absorb or entertain new information is a common one.
According to the Trump adviser and an administration official, the DOGE captain has stubbornly responded with comments like, “It is a Ponzi scheme, though.” (It is not.)
As Musk and his minions claim they’re hunting for wasteful spending, the tech mogul is vying for new contracts at agencies that regulate his many business interests — a situation that poses obvious conflicts of interest. The Trump White House has asserted that Musk can police his own conflicts, and excuse himself from DOGE’s work overseeing certain contracts if he believes it’s necessary.
As part of their purge, Musk and DOGE fired hundreds of probationary employees at the Federal Aviation Administration, which last year proposed fining Musk’s SpaceX for regulatory and safety violations. Musk also pressured the last FAA administrator to resign, leaving it without leadership when an Army helicopter and commercial jet collided over the Potomac River near D.C. in January, killing 67 people.
The agency has started utilizing Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet service, to help upgrade the systems it uses to manage America’s airspace. Musk has tried to spin this as charity, posting that “Starlink terminals are being sent at NO COST to the taxpayer on an emergency basis to restore air-traffic-control connectivity.” However, as Rolling Stone has reported, FAA officials quietly directed staff to quickly locate tens of millions of dollars to fund a Starlink deal.
The New York Times separately reported in March that Starlink is now being used on the White House campus, despite security concerns. Trump’s Department of Defense just awarded SpaceX billions more in contracts to put sensitive military satellites in space. DOGE is reportedly using Musk’s Grok AI chatbot liberally as it slashes the government.
Two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that Musk’s DOGE staffers have grilled DOD employees about the Golden Dome project, Trump’s fantastical proposal to build a space-based missile-defense system to protect the entire United States — an idea ready-made for Starlink. Their questions were so specific that Pentagon officials wondered if the DOGE staff had access to highly sensitive and guarded information.
“Why do these fucking kids know this?” is how one of the sources describes their bewilderment at the time.
With DOGE, Musk has effectively infiltrated agencies that are supposed to oversee his businesses. This situation creates risk, experts say — as officials may not feel like they can scrutinize Musk’s businesses too closely. Case in point: In late February, the FAA cleared SpaceX to launch another unmanned test flight of its Starship rocket, a month after one exploded. Starship exploded again midair, raining debris over Florida and the Caribbean and disrupting nearly 500 flights.
The FAA’s probe of the first explosion concluded that the probable cause was “stronger than anticipated vibrations during flight.” The agency noted that SpaceX had “implemented corrective actions” prior to launching the second rocket, which exploded too.
‘Nobody Elected’ Musk
Musk’s unprecedented attack on the government has not gone without answer from average Americans, who have mobilized mass protests focused on DOGE and Tesla. Republican lawmakers holding town-hall events have had constituents show up to berate them over Musk, booing his name and denouncing his cuts. By early March, House Speaker Mike Johnson was telling his GOP colleagues to skip such events.
Demonstrations, meanwhile, spilled into the streets. “DOGE is illegitimate. Congress has not authorized them,” a federal worker at a March protest on the National Mall told Rolling Stone. The action saw significant support from veterans due to DOGE’s cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Fuck Musk,” says another attendee, whose relative is a government contract worker. She notes that “nobody elected” Musk.
As Musk’s DOGE continues to slash jobs, a protest movement against him is brewing.
The White House and Trump law-enforcement officials have moved to crack down on Tesla vandals. At a Tesla showcase that Trump held on the White House driveway with Musk, the president said the attackers should be considered domestic terrorists. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that three individuals suspected of carrying out arson attacks on Tesla properties were facing sentences of up to 20 years. The FBI launched a task force to look at anti-Tesla violence.
Trump also suggested that individuals arrested for these crimes should be sent to prison in El Salvador.
What’s $1 Million?
Amid rising public anger about his role and influence, Musk held a town hall in late March in Green Bay, Wisconsin. More than 1,000 supporters joined him, as hundreds protested outside in the ice-cold rain.
The protesters were there to vent their anger about Musk’s attempts to buy a state Supreme Court seat. The tech billionaire — through his Super PAC, America PAC — had been offering voters $100 to sign a petition decrying so-called activist judges. Only petition signers could attend the town hall. Musk had announced he would give away checks for $1 million to two event attendees.
One protester, holding a sign that said “X-LAX needed to eliminate Musk,” told Rolling Stone that Musk had “no business in Wisconsin trying to influence votes.” Another held a sign declaring, “Packer fans don’t like Nazis,” with a picture of Musk’s straight-armed salute.
Inside, Musk appeared onstage donning a Packers-style cheesehead hat before signing it and throwing it into the crowd.
Shortly afterward, he brought two winners out to collect the $1 million checks. He admitted to the audience that the point of them is “just to get attention.” He laughed about how paying voters this way “causes the legacy media to kind of lose their minds.”
While $1 million would be a life-changing sum for most people, it means shockingly little to a man who was reportedly worth $316 billion at the end of March. One of these checks is equivalent to just over 60 cents for him, when you compare his net worth with that of the median American. (The $290 million that Musk spent to elect Trump and Republicans was equivalent to roughly $214 for him at the time — less than an average family’s weekly grocery bill.)
“I would thank him for radicalizing me. I had never attended a protest until I was fired.”
Ben Vizzachero
At his town hall, Musk — an immigrant — launched into a tirade about noncitizens receiving Social Security numbers, standing in front of a chart purporting to show a big spike under Democrats. In reality, legal immigrants are given Social Security numbers so they can pay taxes; this process was in fact made automatic during Trump’s first term. The crowd gasped as Musk gave them the false impression that DOGE had finally found real fraud in Social Security.
When Musk was interrupted by protesters, he joked that they were operatives funded by Democratic mega-donor George Soros — yes, inside the event filled with people he was paying $100 to sign his petition, where he also gave away $2 million.
Throughout the night, Musk argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court election would have major implications not just for the state or the country, but possibly the world — if Democrats won, he argued, Republicans could lose two congressional seats.
Two days later, Wisconsin voters convincingly rejected Musk’s candidate, Brad Schimel, by 10 points. The election was a referendum on Musk — and he lost big.
Dr. Kristin Lyerly, a Wisconsin OB-GYN who serves on the board for the Committee to Protect Health Care and campaigned against Schimel, tells Rolling Stone, “Authenticity is incredibly important to Wisconsinites, and that is what Elon Musk completely lacked: any sense of authenticity.”
After Musk’s epic fail, word trickled out that he could soon leave the Trump administration. It wasn’t a surprise — special government employees are supposed to serve for 130 days or less per year. Musk’s effect on the government and its workers will linger.
On April 5, as a wave of “Hands Off!” protests coalesced against Trump and Musk in every state and cities around the world, Rolling Stone spoke again with Vizzachero. He was getting ready to speak at one of these rallies in California. (Now that he’s been rehired, he says, “the statements that I’m making to you are my personal opinions.”)
He reads his planned speech over the phone. He talks about how environmental and conservation laws brought back the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon, and restored America’s public lands. “The Trump administration wants to exploit and abuse our public lands so that they can make billionaires like Elon Musk even richer,” he says.
It’s been a month since his run-in with Musk. He says he’s “kind of grateful.”
If he saw Musk again now, Vizzachero says, “I would thank him for radicalizing me, because I had actually never attended a protest until a week after I got fired. I spent a long time sitting on the sidelines thinking there’s so much bad stuff happening. He gave me the push that I needed to use my voice to speak up and speak out.”
‘Hard to imagine a bigger betrayal’: AZ judge reveals men’s Russia aircraft parts scheme
Mary Jo Pitzl, Arizona Republic – April 6, 2025
An Arizona judge sentenced two Russian men to prison for sending aircraft parts to Russia in an illegal export scam.
U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza handed Oleg Sergeyevich Patsulya an almost six-year sentence on April 2, while Vasilii Sergeyevich Besedin was handed a two-year sentence.
The two Florida residents presented themselves to U.S. companies, including one in Arizona, as brokers seeking aircraft parts on behalf of clients in other countries. However, they intended to send the parts to Russia, in violation of heightened export controls in the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to court documents.
The two were charged with violating the federal Export Control Reform Act. Patsulya’s sentence also reflected his guilty plea to money laundering. He agreed to forfeit more than $4.5M in assets, including a luxury vehicle and a boat, to compensate for the money he made off of the scheme.
In a statement, Lanza identified Patsulya as the leader of the plot, which Patsulya hatched after he had been granted a visa to be in the U.S. legally.
“It’s hard to imagine a bigger betrayal of the United States than what you did,” Lanza said.
In his plea agreement, Patsulya acknowledged that by pleading guilty it was “a virtual certainty” that he would be deported from the U.S.
The duo’s efforts to obtain parts for a carbon disc brake system used on Boeing 737s led them to an Arizona firm, identified in court documents as “Arizona Company 1.”
During a Sept. 8, 2022 visit, the two said they were interested in buying brake parts for a Turkish client and signed forms indicating the transaction complied with export rules. Both actions were lies, court documents stated.
The Arizona deal never went through, but the two pursued other companies and ultimately were able to ship some of the brake systems to Russia, records show.
The case was investigated by the Phoenix field office of the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security and Phoenix-based FBI agents. They were aided by federal investigators in Boston and Miami.
This week, they are targeting the man who gave him that role: President Donald Trump.
In coordinated demonstrations that organizers said took place across all 50 states, the “Hands Off!” protest accused Trump and his administration of championing policies that benefit the rich while making life harder for everyone else.
Business Insider sent reporters to protests in different parts of the country to hear from them directly. Many said they were most worried about the economy and their retirement investments, which have dwindled in tandem with Trump’s tariff announcements.
Trump says the tariffs will help jump-start US manufacturing, promote US goods, protect jobs and ultimately create more of them. He has urged Americans to wait out the initial market volatility and price increases.
That has, however, so far done little to alleviate fears. Here’s what protesters told us and what surprised us the most.
New York City
A large crowd protests the Trump administration in Midtown Manhattan.Bryan Bedder/Getty Images for Community Change Action
As I rode the train from Brooklyn to Midtown Manhattan, the subway car filled with protesters, their cardboard signs bumping up against umbrellas on a rainy Saturday in New York.
By 1 p.m., the 42nd Street station was even more crowded than usual. Older people clutched slippery canes, and young kids clutched their parents’ hands. One man wore a once trendy Harris Walz camo hat. Another waved a small American flag, an unusual display of patriotism at anti-Trump rallies.
The damp horde of protesters shuffled toward Bryant Park, and in some ways, it all felt familiar. There were chants about abortion, signs featuring the face of now-deceased Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a progressive icon, and a steady cacophony of car horns.
But some things were different this time.
For one, the crowd looked older, with middle-aged Americans seeming to outnumber the 20-somethings that dominated rallies during the pandemic. It makes sense since many Americans are watching their retirement savings dwindle in the face of crashing markets and worry that staff cuts to the Social Security Administration could impact the crucial safety net.
While the anti-government protests held during Trump’s first term focused on social issues — like abortion and civil rights issues — many of the signs today targeted the economy.
A protest sign at the Manhattan demonstration.Alice Tecotzky/Business Insider
Most of the people I spoke to didn’t want to share their last names because they worried about their privacy in the current political environment. Yet they weren’t shy about their rage and despair.
Dorothy Auer, 62, told me she wished people would get angrier.
“I’ve been working for over 40 years, and I looked at my investments yesterday — my retirement plan — and I literally don’t think I’ll ever be able to retire,” she said, starting to choke up.
Wiping her eyes with her free hand — the other held a black and white sign bashing Musk — Auer told me it’s distressing to see a man of such wealth “turn around and crap on us.”
Jian, 33, held a sign that read, “Tariffs are killing my 401(k),” but he told me he’s most upset about what’s happening to his retired father.
“My dad just lost about 25% of his savings in the last three days because of the tariffs,” he said.
It’s not just the economy, of course, that brought thousands of people out to Midtown Manhattan.
Penny, 54, said the Trump administration affected virtually every issue she cares about. Even so, we ended up talking about Musk.
“I’m horrified that a person who wasn’t born here, wasn’t elected, seems to be getting carte blanche to do whatever he wants in our government,” she said. “How did he get a security clearance?”
Most of those I talked to as they slowly trudged toward Madison Square Park didn’t think the protest would change Trump’s mind.
A few said they hoped Congress would pay attention, but more than that, people said they felt they needed to do something.
“Even if it’s sort of hopeless right now, at least it’s showing people that we’re here,” Pyare, 49, told me. “And that we don’t like it.”
Novi, Michigan
Another week, another protest.
On Saturday, I attended the Hands Off! rally in Novi, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit where 55% of the vote went to Kamala Harris during the election. Thousands of people showed up.
The crowd was emotionally charged and united by the spirit of collective action. Many attendees said they were first-time protesters. The Tesla Takedown protests I attended last weekend seemed somber by comparison. Protesters here got loud.
The artist calls herself the “Old Lady Army Fighting for Democracy” or “OLAFFD.”Lakshmi Varanasi
“Call me Old Lady Army Fighting for Democracy,” one 66-year-old woman, who didn’t want to give her real name, told me. She held up a sign she had made. It was a charcoal drawing of the Statue of Liberty, whose hands covered her eyes in shame.
“I just copied this off of Facebook,” she said. But to her it symbolized that “everything that our country stands for is being destroyed, and the world is looking at us.”
A pin that said “Keep your laws off my body” was of several Liana Gettel, 58, was wearing at the Hands Off! rally in Novi, Michigan.Lakshmi Varanasi
Liana Gettel, 58, said she was outraged for several reasons, including the administration’s stance on abortion. She said she had an abortion 29 years ago.
“I had lost a child. The child would not come out on its own. So I had to have a procedure. Had I not had that procedure, I wouldn’t be here,” she said. “And that’s what they want to block, is things like that?”
Protesters targeted many different issues, including abortion, trans, and minority rights. One protester holding up a sign for trans rights said, “Trans people are just the appetizer, but everyone will be on the menu now.”
The line echoed remarks made by human rights advocate Channyn Lynne Parker at the Rally for Trans Visibility in Chicago last weekend.
Protesters at the Hands Off! rally fought for many causes, including trans rights.Lakshmi Varanasi
Unlike protests during Trump’s first term, which focused on social issues, however, many people today were also worried about the president’s economic policies.
Matt Watts said he was protesting Musk’s takeover of Social Security and Trump’s tariffs on “countries that don’t deserve it.” After the stock market began to take a hit from all the talk of tariffs, Watts said he took his money out of his 401(k) and invested it into a more stable fund. “I’m getting ready to retire pretty soon. I’ve got to count on that savings,” he said.
Most protesters were middle-aged or older, but they captured some younger activists with their energy.
Yajat Verma, 18, and Patricia, 53.Lakshmi Varanasi
Yajat Verma, 18, said he hadn’t known about the protest but was driving by with a friend when he saw the crowd. He decided to join in and started handing out water bottles to protesters.
“Everyone should be protesting,” he said.
San Francisco
Thousands of protesters gathered at Civic Center Plaza near San Francisco City Hall.Lloyd Lee
Protesters crowding together near the San Francisco City Hall had much to be angry about.
On one end of the 150,000 square-foot Civic Center Plaza, a man’s voice boomed through the microphone about the dangers of fascism and how it was time for people to go “on the offensive.”
On the other end was Michelle Gutierrez Vo, president of the California Nurses Association, warning folks about Trump’s move to strip federal workers of their union rights.
With so many grievances against the current administration in the air, some protesters resorted to bullet-point lists of the issues on large signs.
Protesters hold signs listing several issues they have with the Trump administration.Lloyd Lee
That spoke to one of the concerns for Maria, a 67-year-old San Francisco resident who declined to provide her last name.
“My focus has been a lot about the environment,” Maria told BI, later adding, “There’s so much going on right now, but I know it’s important to try and stay focused on one thing and hope other people are focused on the other things.”
Maria’s friend chimed in, saying she was worried about her Social Security, which she said she had been paying into for six decades.
For Frida Ruiz, 18, a student at the University of San Francisco who held a sign that read “Billionaire Cucks,” Trump’s stance on immigration hits close to home as a daughter of Mexican immigrant parents.
For George Chikovani, a 42-year-old SF resident, who came to protest with his wife Lisa Isola, 40, and their three-year-old and 10-months-old children, his most personal issue was the Ukraine war.
“My grandmother is from Ukraine and then I grew up in Georgia, so that cause has felt very personal to me. I still have family and friends there,” Chikovani said.
At least 7,500 people gathered near city hall on Saturday afternoon, according to an officer with the San Francisco Police Department.
Some protesters were in full-body costumes.Lloyd Lee
As my colleague observed in New York, older millennials and seniors made up large swaths of the crowd. Some came out in full costumes, sticking true to SF’s colorful character.
Maria, who is also a member of Third Act, a left-leaning political advocacy group focused on mobilizing senior voters, said she was encouraged by people who came out to protest but was “hoping to see more.”
