Major solar manufacturer opens massive new factory in unexpected state: ‘A crown jewel for us’
Michael Muir – April 6, 2025
Renewable energy received a major boost in Texas with the opening of a 1.6-gigawatt solar module factory in Brookshire. Waaree Solar Americas, a subdivision of Indian conglomerate Waaree Energies, began production in January 2025.
The manufacturer told PV Magazine, “The launch of commercial production marks a critical step in localizing solar manufacturing in the United States, contributing to job creation and economic growth while reducing reliance on imported solar products.”
The company plans to ramp up production in 2026 to three gigawatts and five gigawatts by the end of 2027. For reference, one gigawatt is enough energy to power around 876,000 homes for a year, per Carbon Collective. Texas is a fitting choice for the new facility as the Lone Star State is one of the country’s most enthusiastic adopters of solar energy.
Solar power is incredibly popular across the political spectrum in the United States, with a recent poll finding that almost 90% of citizens support federal incentives to install it. That popularity isn’t difficult to explain.
As a clean energy source, it appeals to environmentally conscious homeowners, while the potential savings make solar attractive to more fiscally minded consumers. Homeowners who take the plunge enjoy huge savings on their bills, which amount to tens of thousands over the panels’ lifetime.
Such is the bipartisan appeal of rooftop solar panels that when the Inflation Reduction Act offered incentives to lower the installation costs, Republican-leaning states were the biggest beneficiaries. Seven of the top ten states for solar panels in 2023 backed Trump in the 2024 election.
However, the future of solar subsidies is uncertain, with the current administration ordering a pause on IRA funding until April. Additionally, uncertainty over tariffs could make importing materials difficult, but Waaree seems to have anticipated that prospect.
CEO Amit Paithankar believes the company is in a good position regardless of what unfolds next. He told Moneycontrol it is uniquely placed to move in whatever direction is necessary.
“Our Texas facility will be a crown jewel for us,” Paithankar said. “Depending on whichever way the policy framework in the US shapes up, we will be in a good position.”
‘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.
Countries boost recruitment of American scientists amid cuts to scientific funding
Chandelis Duster – March 29, 2025
People walk past the faculty of economy of the Aix-Marseille University in Marseille on Oct. 4, 2023.Christophe Simon/AFP via Getty Images
As the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE seek to reduce the federal workforce and cut spending, some European countries are looking to capitalize on the opportunity by recruiting talent from the scientific community.
The administration’s actions, including eliminating programs and funding for scientific research, are prompting some researchers and scientists to consider leaving the U.S. to live in other countries, such as France, to continue their work.
According to a survey released by the journal Nature on Thursday, more than 1,200 respondents who identified as scientists said they were considering leaving the U.S. and relocating to Europe or Canada because of President Trump’s actions. Approximately 1,650 people completed the survey, which was posted on the journal’s website, social media and an e-mailed newsletter, according to the journal.
Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells NPR that she has spoken with scientists, some of whom currently work at federal agencies and others who have been fired. Many of them say they are looking for opportunities abroad due to a lack of options for conducting their research with the government or at universities, Jones says.
“There’s another bucket of folks as well, and those are folks who are just worried in general about the intimidation, fear and harassment that they are facing,” she says. “This could be a result of the kind of work that they’re doing. They might be doing work around issues of diversity, equity, [and] inclusion, trying to broaden participation in our STEM or science, technology, engineering, math fields. These could be folks working on issues of climate change, of vaccine safety.”
Jones also says she has spoken with scientists who said after the 2024 presidential election, they “began seeking and have acquired positions overseas.”
“They would have started that process before inauguration and before the last few weeks,” Jones says.
Helping as many scientists as possible
The U.S. has historically been viewed as a leading country for research, having actively recruited scientists from around the world for significant projects and studies. For example, when the Manhattan Project began in December 1941, it was a top-secret research initiative by the U.S. government that ultimately led to the development of the first atomic bombs. Scientists from Europe were specifically sought out to help with the project. Many of these European scientists were already living in the U.S. after being displaced because of the turmoil of WWII or fleeing from Nazism and fascism.Sponsor Message
American scientists conducting research in other countries is not a new phenomenon, and there are programs where American students and scientists can study abroad, Sudip Parikh, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, tells NPR. But the growing number of American scientists considering leaving the U.S. due to uncertainty in the U.S. is not normal, he says.
“It’s something that’s ramped up and it has a different messaging, which is saying, ‘There’s uncertainty there. Come to us,’ ” Parikh says of efforts by other countries to recruit scientists and researchers from the United States.
In response to these recent developments, schools in France, including the prestigious CentraleSupélec, have established funds to support American scientists. The engineering school announced last week that it has allocated 3 million euros (around $3.2 million) to finance research projects that can no longer continue in the U.S. Additionally, earlier this month, Aix-Marseille Université — one of the oldest and largest universities in France, with roots tracing back to1409 and approximately 80,000 students — announced it is accepting applications for its Safe Place For Science program.
The program aims to offer “a safe and stimulating environment for scientists wishing to pursue their research in complete freedom” and will support about 15 American scientists with a total fund of up to 15 million euros (around $16.2 million) over three years. The university has already received more than 150 applications, according to a public relations agency representing the university.
“We are witnessing a new brain drain. We will do everything in our power to help as many scientists as possible continue their research,” Éric Berton, president of the university, said in a statement. “However, we cannot meet all demands on our own. The Ministry of Education and Research is fully supporting and assisting us in this effort, which is intended to expand at both national and European levels.”
Other countries are also actively seeking to attract American scientists. For instance, the Netherlands is also launching a fund to support American scientists as well as those from other countries. Minister of Education, Culture and Science Eppo Bruins informed the parliament in a letter last week that he requested the country’s science financier to set up a fund aimed at bringing top international scientists to the Netherlands as soon as possible.
“The world is changing. Tensions are increasing. We see that more and more scientists are looking for another place to do their work,” Bruins wrote in the letter. “I want more international top scientists to come and do that here. After all, top scientists are worth their weight in gold for our country and for Europe.”
While it remains unclear what funding will be available for scientific research from the U.S. government and for universities, Parikh says he is encouraging scientists working here not to leave.
“Over the last 80 years, we have built the greatest innovation engine that the world’s ever seen and it’s delivered cures and treatments for disease. It has delivered economic growth and jobs. And the other countries have paid attention and they wanna copy it and we shouldn’t make it easy for them,” he says.
McConnell warns of ‘embarrassing naivete’ in Trump admin’s dealings with Putin while sharply criticizing Ukraine policy
Morgan Rimmer and Manu Raju, CNN – March 28, 2025
Sen. Mitch McConnell arrives prior to the Senate Republicans weekly policy luncheon, in the US Capitol on March 25 in Washington, DC. – Al Drago/Getty Images
Former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell sharply criticized the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy and pivot toward isolationism Thursday night, accusing President Donald Trump’s advisers of showing “their embarrassing naivete” in dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
McConnell, a staunch supporter of Ukraine who delivered remarks while being awarded the US-Ukraine Foundation’s highest honor, warned that “some of the president’s advisers” are urging Trump to pull back from supporting the war-torn nation, and argued that such a move would be a sign of “weakness.”
“This war is a reminder that what happens in one region has implications in another. That weakness in the face of one adversary would invite aggression from another even closer to home. That our credibility was not divisible,” McConnell said. “Allies half a world away in Asia have told us the same – that Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression matters to those who live in China’s shadow.”
“America can’t afford to ignore these lessons. But that’s exactly what some of the president’s advisers are urging him to do.”
The pointed remarks from McConnell come as Trump has spoken with Putin twice since taking office – breaking a sustained period of silence between the White House and the Kremlin – and follow the president’s fiery Oval Office meeting with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky late last month.
McConnell’s desire for an active US role in deterring aggression from Russia in Ukraine has put him at odds with a growing share of the Republican electorate, which has embraced Trump’s more isolationist view. And while the Kentucky Republican has largely voted with Trump during his tenure, he recently put himself at odds with nearly all Senate Republicans when he cast a trio of votes against Trump’s Cabinet nominees – including for the critical defense secretary and director of national intelligence roles.
In turn, McConnell, the longest-serving leader in Senate history when he stepped down from the role in November, has drawn Trump’s ire.
McConnell on Thursday noted that the US’ allies and adversaries are watching closely as the administration praises Putin.
“When the president’s envoys trumpet the magnanimity of a thuggish autocrat, they do so under the watchful eyes of his friends in Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang. When his representatives in negotiations masquerade as neutral arbiters, or legitimize sham elections, or treat aggressor and victim as morally equivalent, they do so in full view of longtime partners across the globe – some who know the taste of aggression, and some who have good reason to fear its imminent arrival,” McConnell said.
“When American officials court the favor of an adversary at the expense of allies. When they mock our friends to impress an enemy. They reveal their embarrassing naivete.”
The former GOP leader pointed to former President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup and the end of the Cold War, and specifically what he said is “the most popular phrase in Washington today: peace through strength.”
“But too many of those who use it – particularly among the president’s advisers – don’t seem ready to summon the resources and national will it requires,” he argued.
McConnell ended with a stark warning: “To cut off Ukraine is to stab ourselves in the back. So is the denigration of allies who have fought and died alongside us.”
Ukraine’s spy agency says Russia believes it must end the war by 2026 or risk falling far behind the US and China
Matthew Loh – March 28, 2025
The deputy head of Ukraine’s GUR said the Kremlin forecasts a need to end the war by 2026.
Vadym Skibitsky said Moscow is likely concerned about its long-term ability to compete with the US.
If the war drags on, its relevance could be relegated just to Eastern Europe, Skibitsky said.
Ukraine’s intelligence agency said on Tuesday that Russia likely believes it must resolve its war with Kyiv by 2026, or eventually lose its chances of competing with the US and China on the world stage.
Maj. Gen. Vadym Skibitsky, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s military intelligence agency GUR, referenced forecast documents from the Kremlin at a press event in Kyiv about European security.
Business Insider could not independently verify the existence and authenticity of these documents.
“We can say that the Russian Federation has clearly defined in these documents that the Ukrainian issue must be resolved by 2026,” said Skibitsky, who is also deputy head of GUR.
Skibitsky, pictured here during a separate January 2024 interview, is deputy head of the GUR.Global Images Ukraine/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
“Because if the war continues for another five to 10 years, Russia will never be able to catch up and reach the same level as the United States and China,” he added.
Should this happen, Russia could stand to “forever remain a regional player” in Eastern Europe, Skibitsky said.
“And the Russian Federation clearly understands this today. That is why it foresees this in the future,” he said.
Skibitsky said such Russian forecasts typically combine work from government ministries, federal agencies, and research institutions, and that the Kremlin’s plans had described war scenarios as far in the future as 2045. These included conflict scenarios with Northern European states, Poland, and the Baltics, Skibitsky said.
The deputy spy chief’s comments come as the White House has sought to push Ukraine and Russia toward a cease-fire. The effort has surfaced new questions about how long the war will last — and concerns in Ukraine that the resulting peace might only be achieved by giving Russia outsize concessions.
In early March, The Washington Post reported that an influential think tank in Moscow had assessed that a “peaceful resolution” to the war by 2026 would be impossible.
According to the Post, the analysis recommended a hardline, maximalist stance toward negotiations with the US and Ukraine. However, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told the outlet that the federal government “was not aware of such recommendations” and was working with “more considered options.”
Ukraine thinks Russia’s costs are too high
The head of GUR, Kyrylo Budanov, recently voiced a similar assessment of Moscow needing a 2026 deadline.
“If they don’t end this war by 2026, they lose even a chance for global leadership,” he told state broadcaster Ukrinform on February 27. “They will be left with, at most, a regional leadership level, which is absolutely unacceptable to them.”
Budanov said that a protracted war would undermine Russia’s ability to innovate in tech and compete with the US on the world stage, especially with its ability to contest the Arctic regions.
“The cost of the war is too high — the financial cost,” he told Ukrinform.
Washington’s leaders consider Russia as one of two near-peer competitors or potential adversaries, meaning that it has a chance of being comparable to US military might.
The other is China, which leaders in both the Biden and Trump administrations have repeatedly said is the Pentagon’s main priority for preparing against threats.
The Russian Defense Ministry and the Kremlin’s press office did not respond to requests for comment sent by BI.
Tesla Protest Movement Prepares for its Biggest Day Yet
Nik Popli – March 27, 2025
Protesters gather outside of a Manhattan Tesla dealership to demonstrate against Tesla CEO Elon Musk on March 22, 2025, in New York City. Credit – Spencer Platt–Getty Images
Cybertrucks set on fire. Bomb threats at Tesla showrooms. Vandalism at charging stations.
A wave of violent protests targeting Tesla facilities has erupted across the country in recent weeks over Elon Musk’s controversial role within the Trump Administration, with demonstrators looking to bankrupt the company and ultimately force Musk out of his government position.
On Saturday, March 29, the anti-Musk movement is preparing for what could be its largest mobilization yet. The decentralized group Tesla Takedown has called for peaceful protests targeting more than 500 locations worldwide in what organizers describe as a stand against its billionaire CEO’s involvement with right-wing politics. Musk, who serves as the head of the newly-established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), alienated many customers when he endorsed Trump in last year’s presidential election and spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars to help his campaign, including by leveraging his social media platform X to rally support.
Since January, Musk’s public persona has only become more divisive, as he’s overseen aggressive cuts to the federal workforce, called for privatizing popular government programs, and made what was widely interpreted as a Nazi-style salute at a celebration rally on the day of Trump’s Inauguration. Many also view his close ties to the Trump Administration as a clear conflict of interest, given that his businesses have collected a reported $38 billion in government funds.
While Tesla Takedown insists its movement is nonviolent, critics have tried in recent weeks to blame it for acts of vandalism and arson against Tesla showrooms, vehicles, and charging stations. Incidents have ranged from Molotov cocktail attacks in Salem, Oregon, to Cybertrucks spray-painted with Nazi comparisons in Brooklyn. Federal authorities have already arrested multiple suspects, with both Trump and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi branding the destruction of Tesla property as “domestic terrorism” and warning that those involved could face up to 20 years in prison.
“You didn’t have that on Jan. 6, I can tell you,” Trump said last week, suggesting that the Tesla attacks were more destructive than the deadly January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, when hundreds of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to overturn the election and left the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices. “Nobody was killed on January 6, but what’s happening to Elon Musk and Tesla is a disgrace.”
Since December, Tesla’s stock has lost more than half its value. Trump has portrayed Musk as a patriot under siege and earlier this month made a show of buying a Tesla Model S on the South Lawn of the White House. “I think [Musk has] been treated very unfairly by a very small group of people. And I just want people to know that he can’t be penalized for being a patriot,” Trump said of Musk’s role in his Administration. The President promised that protesters who had attacked Tesla dealerships and charging stations were “going to go through hell.”
“I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20-year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, even suggesting that convicted vandals should serve their time in El Salvador’s notorious prison system, which has already become a black hole for accused Venezuelan gang members deported from United States with no judicial hearing.
Despite the increased pressure from the Trump Administration, protesters are still planning for their “biggest day of action” at all 277 Tesla showrooms on March 29. “Elon Musk is destroying our democracy, and he’s using the fortune he built at Tesla to do it. We are taking action at Tesla to stop Musk’s illegal coup,” Tesla Takedown says on its website, adding that “we oppose violence, vandalism and destruction of property.”
Once seen as the epitome of innovation and progress, Musk’s Tesla is now viewed as a symbol of division. Some disillusioned owners have responded to calls from Tesla Takedown to sell their vehicles, including Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat. Others have placed anti-Musk bumper stickers on their Teslas in protest, while some conservative personalities, like Fox News host Sean Hannity, have publicized their recent purchases of new Teslas.
Some analysts speculate that Tesla’s board may eventually have to distance itself from Musk if public relations woes continue to drag down the company’s financial performance. An NBC News poll released this month found that more voters (51%) viewed Musk negatively than positively (39%), reflecting how deeply polarized public opinion of the billionaire CEO has become in the wake of his work with Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have seized on the backlash against Musk to energize their base. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas said at a virtual rally held for the Tesla Takedown movement that she hoped to see Musk “taken down” on her birthday on March 29, the day of the planned protests. She clarified during the rally that her calls for action were nonviolent. Bondi, the attorney general, warned Crockett to “tread very carefully” in response.
As tensions escalate, some protesters say they are now facing personal threats and harassment. Joan Donovan, one of the organizers of the Tesla Takedown movement, said in a post on Bluesky that she is being “viciously threatened and doxed” for participating in the public demonstrations, claiming that Musk’s supporters had developed “a private army of networked harassers” who have branded her a “domestic terrorist” for protesting Tesla. And in Florida last Saturday, a man was arrested after driving his car toward a group of anti-Musk protesters outside a Tesla dealership in West Palm Beach. No one was injured.
The FBI has warned the public to look out for signs of possible attacks on Tesla properties ahead of the day of action, including individuals surveilling or trying to break into dealerships or making threats against the company online.
“Tesla just makes electric cars and has done nothing to deserve these evil attacks,” Musk wrote on X in response to the violent acts aimed at Tesla facilities.
Tesla Takedown Gets Ready for Global Day of Anti-Musk Protests
Hafiz Rashid – March 28, 2025
On Saturday, Elon Musk’s Tesla dealerships around the world will be met with protests.
Organizers are calling it the Tesla Takedown Global Day of Action, and plan to hold rallies at over 200 Tesla locations, including close to 50 in California. They hope to send a message to Tesla CEO Musk and the Trump administration that they oppose their overhaul of the federal government, from the mass purges of federal workers to closing entire agencies.
The organizers describe themselves as grassroots activists who will “protest Tesla for as long as Elon Musk continues to shred public services,” according to their organizing page. The movement is decentralized, with local organizers planning their own protests rather than coordinating with a national group. Musk is “destroying our democracy using the fortune he built at Tesla” and so, in turn, they are “taking action at Tesla,” the website states.
“Nobody voted for this, and nobody voted for Elon,” Vickie Mueller Olvera, who is organizing protests in California’s Bay Area, said to The Guardian. “He’s an unelected super-billionaire and he’s a thug.”
Olvera advises people not to buy a Tesla or buy stock in the company and to join the protests, which started shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Since then, Tesla stock has plummeted, with Musk leveraging his influence over the Trump administration to have the president shill for the car company on the White House lawn and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick beg the public to buy Tesla stock.
Trump’s ill-advised automobile tariffs may even affect Tesla less than other automakers, according to industry experts, raising questions as to whether that is Trump’s real goal. But Musk is largely responsible for damaging his own car company, which makes a fortune not on car sales but on exploiting the carbon credit market. If he’s upset about Tesla’s (and his own) damaged image, perhaps he should stay out of the federal government. But that would mean the end of his gravy train.
Vance accuses Denmark of underinvesting in Greenland as Trump presses for US takeover of the island
Philip Crowther, Kirsten Grieshaber and Aamer Madhani – March 27, 2025
Vice President JD Vance arrives at Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, Friday, March 28, 2025. (Jim Watson/Pool via AP)Vice President JD Vance, from right, and second lady Usha Vance, speak with soldiers at Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, Friday, March 28, 2025. (Jim Watson/Pool via AP)Vice President JD Vance, right, and second lady Usha Vance arrive at Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, Friday, March 28, 2025. (Jim Watson/Pool via AP)
NUUK, Greenland (AP) — U.S. Vice President JD Vance said Friday that Denmark has “underinvested” in Greenland’s security and demanded that Denmark change its approach as President Donald Trump pushes to take over the Danish territory.
The pointed remarks came as Vance visited U.S. troops on Pituffik Space Base on the mineral-rich, strategically critical island alongside his wife and other senior U.S. officials for a trip that was ultimately scaled back after an uproar among Greenlanders and Danes who were not consulted about the original itinerary.
“Our message to Denmark is very simple: You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland,” Vance said. “You have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass filled with incredible people. That has to change.”
Vance said the U.S. has “no option” but to take a significant position to ensure the security of Greenland as he encouraged a push in Greenland for independence from Denmark.
“I think that they ultimately will partner with the United States,” Vance said. “We could make them much more secure. We could do a lot more protection. And I think they’d fare a lot better economically as well.”
The reaction by members of Greenland’s parliament and residents has rendered that unlikely, with anger erupting over the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the vast Arctic island. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen pushed back on Vance’s claim that Denmark isn’t doing enough for defense in the Arctic, calling her country “a good and strong ally.”
Soon after arriving, Vance briefly addressed U.S. troops stationed at the base as he and his wife sat down to lunch with them, saying that the Trump administration is very interested in “Arctic security.” He and his entourage, including national security adviser Mike Waltz, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, later received briefings from military officials.
It was minus-3 degrees F (minus-19 degrees C) when the delegation landed at the remote base 750 miles (1,200 kilometers) north of the Arctic Circle. “It’s cold as s—- here. Nobody told me,” Vance said, prompting laughs.
The revised trip to the semi-autonomous Danish territory comes as relations between the U.S. and the Nordic country, a traditional U.S. ally and NATO member, have soured. Trump had repeatedly suggested that the United States should in some form control the island.
During his remarks at the end of the brief visit, Vance underscored that he did not think military force was ever going to be necessary as he pressed the idea of a dramatically enhanced American position on the island.
“Because we think the people of Greenland are rational and good, we think we’re going to have to cut a deal, Donald Trump style, to ensure the security of this territory but also the United States of America,” Vance said while adding that the people of Greenland had the right to determine their own future.
In Washington, Trump on Friday said the U.S. “needs Greenland for international security.”
Trump, speaking to reporters soon after Vance’s arrival, alluded to the rising Chinese and Russian interest in the Arctic, where sea lanes have opened up because of climate change.
“Greenland’s very important for the peace of the world,” Trump said. “And I think Denmark understands, and I think the European Union understands it. And if they don’t, we’re going to have to explain it to them.”
After Vance’s speech, Frederiksen said Denmark was increasing its defense capabilities in the region, including new Arctic ships and long-range drones.
With Greenland part of NATO, she also emphasized the collective responsibility of the alliance to defend the Arctic in response to the Russian threat. After Denmark stood “side by side with Americans” in its war against terror, she said it was “not a fair way” for Vance to refer to Denmark.
Denmark’s ambassador to the U.S., Jesper Møller Sørensen, thanked Vance “for taking a closer look at Arctic security” and said both countries agree more could be done.
“Greenland & Denmark share a desire to strengthen our already incredibly close ties with our friend & ally,” he wrote on social media.
Ahead of Vance’s arrival, four of the five parties elected to Greenland’s parliament earlier this month signed an agreement to form a new, broad-based coalition government. The parties banded together in the face of Trump’s designs on the territory.
“It is a time when we as a population are under pressure,” the prime minister-designate, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said before the accord was signed to applause and cheers in the capital, Nuuk.
He added that “we must stick together. Together we are strongest,” Greenland broadcaster KNR reported.
In a post on Instagram, Frederiksen congratulated Nielsen and his incoming government, and said, “I look forward to close cooperation in an unnecessarily conflict-filled time.”
Frederiksen said Tuesday that the U.S. visit, which was originally set for three days, created “unacceptable pressure.” She has said Denmark wants to work with the U.S. on defense and security, but Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.
Initially, Vance’s wife, Usha Vance, had announced a solo trip to the Avannaata Qimussersu dogsled race in Sisimiut. The vice president subsequently said he would join her on that trip, only to change that itinerary again — after protests from Greenland and Denmark — to a one-day visit to the military post only.
Inhabitants of Nuuk, which is about 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) south of Pituffik, voiced concern about Vance’s visit and the U.S. interest in their island.
Cora Høy, 22, said Vance was “welcome if he wants to see it but of course Greenland is not for sale.” She added that “it’s not normal around here” with all the attention Greenland is getting. “I feel now every day is about (Trump) and I just want to get away from it.”
“It’s all a bit crazy. Of course the population here is a bit shook up,” said 30-year-old Inuk Kristensen. “My opinion is the same as everyone’s: Of course you don’t do things this way. You don’t just come here and say that you want to buy the place.”
As the nautical gateway to the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America, Greenland has broader strategic value as both China and Russia seek access to its waterways and natural resources.
“We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic, because we know that if America doesn’t, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind,” Vance said.
___
Grieshaber reported from Berlin and Madhani from Washington. Associated Press writers Geir Moulson in Berlin and Vanessa Gera in Warsaw, Poland, contributed to this report.
“We’re going after them”: Musk promises Trump admin will target Tesla critics
Griffin Eckstein – March 27, 2025
Elon Musk KENNY HOLSTON/THE NEW YORK TIMES/11276477p/AFP via Getty Images
Tesla CEO and Trump advisor Elon Musk gave Fox News’s Bret Baier a rare look inside his Department of Government Efficiency on Thursday. While the conversation centered around supposed cost-cutting, talk of enemies of MAGA and Musk was never far off.
The X owner doubled down on promises from Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Donald Trump that those caught vandalizing Tesla dealerships would face harsh legal penalties. However, Musk took it a step further, promising punishment for Tesla’s critics.
“People are committing violence. They are firebombing Tesla dealerships. They are shooting guns into stores. They’re threatening people,” Musk said. “Why? What’s happening, it seems to me, is they’re being fed propaganda by the far left, and they believe it.”
“The ones pushing the lies and propaganda, we’re going after them,” Musk continued. “I think there’s some real evil out there. We have to overcome it.”
Musk wasn’t clear about what types of anti-Tesla speech could be subject to prosecution. When it comes to anti-Musk speech, the unelected meddler certainly has his pick. Asked by Baier how he feels when he’s “called a Nazi, a white supremacist, a fascist,” Musk said he and Trump both faced comparisons to far-right authoritarian leaders like Hitler and Mussolini – and said those responsible needed to be stopped.
“They’re pushing these lies. And why do they push these lies? And I think need to hold people responsible for pushing these lies,” Musk said. “Because those lies almost got the president killed.”
The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
Jeffrey Goldberg – March 24, 2025
The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.
This is going to require some explaining.
The story technically begins shortly after the Hamas invasion of southern Israel, in October 2023. The Houthis—an Iran-backed terrorist organization whose motto is “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam”—soon launched attacks on Israel and on international shipping, creating havoc for global trade. Throughout 2024, the Biden administration was ineffective in countering these Houthi attacks; the incoming Trump administration promised a tougher response.
This is where Pete Hegseth and I come in.
On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn’t find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration’s contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump’s periodic fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.
I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter.
Two days later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the “Houthi PC small group.”
A message to the group, from “Michael Waltz,” read as follows: “Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.”
The message continued, “Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.”
The term principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.
One minute later, a person identified only as “MAR”—the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio—wrote, “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same moment, a Signal user identified as “JD Vance” wrote, “Andy baker for VP.” One minute after that, “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, “Joe Kent for DNI.” Nine minutes later, “Scott B”—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or someone spoofing his identity, wrote, “Dan Katz for Treasury.” At 4:53 p.m., a user called “Pete Hegseth” wrote, “Dan Caldwell for DoD.” And at 6:34 p.m., “Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” One more person responded: “John Ratcliffe” wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.
The principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials; Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as “S M,” which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as “JG.”
That was the end of the Thursday text chain.
After receiving the Waltz text related to the “Houthi PC small group,” I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
The next day, things got even stranger.
At 8:05 a.m. on Friday, March 14, “Michael Waltz” texted the group: “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes.” (High side, in government parlance, refers to classified computer and communications systems.) “State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed.”
At this point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled “JD Vance” responded at 8:16: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any issue. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
A person identified in Signal as “Joe Kent” (Trump’s nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) wrote at 8:22, “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.”
Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user “John Ratcliffe.” The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.
At 8:27, a message arrived from the “Pete Hegseth” account. “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”
The Hegseth message goes on to state, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC”—operations security. “I welcome other thoughts.”
A few minutes later, the “Michael Waltz” account posted a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”
The account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” (The administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes.)
The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”
At this point, the previously silent “S M” joined the conversation. “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
A screenshot from the Signal group shows debate over the president’s views ahead of the attack.
That message from “S M”—presumably President Trump’s confidant Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff, or someone playing Stephen Miller—effectively shut down the conversation. The last text of the day came from “Pete Hegseth,” who wrote at 9:46 a.m., “Agree.”
After reading this chain, I recognized that this conversation possessed a high degree of verisimilitude. The texts, in their word choice and arguments, sounded as if they were written by the people who purportedly sent them, or by a particularly adept AI text generator. I was still concerned that this could be a disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight were impressive.
It was the next morning, Saturday, March 15, when this story became truly bizarre.
At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.
The only person to reply to the update from Hegseth was the person identified as the vice president. “I will say a prayer for victory,” Vance wrote. (Two other users subsequently added prayer emoji.)
According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.
I went back to the Signal channel. At 1:48, “Michael Waltz” had provided the group an update. Again, I won’t quote from this text, except to note that he described the operation as an “amazing job.” A few minutes later, “John Ratcliffe” wrote, “A good start.” Not long after, Waltz responded with three emoji: a fist, an American flag, and fire. Others soon joined in, including “MAR,” who wrote, “Good Job Pete and your team!!,” and “Susie Wiles,” who texted, “Kudos to all – most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless.” “Steve Witkoff” responded with five emoji: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags. “TG” responded, “Great work and effects!” The after-action discussion included assessments of damage done, including the likely death of a specific individual. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
A screenshot from the Signal group shows reactions to the strikes.
On Sunday, Waltz appeared on ABC’s This Week and contrasted the strikes with the Biden administration’s more hesitant approach. “These were not kind of pinprick, back-and-forth—what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks,” he said. “This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out.”
The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group, understanding that this would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s creator, “Michael Waltz,” that I had left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left—or, more to the point, who I was.
Earlier today, I emailed Waltz and sent him a message on his Signal account. I also wrote to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other officials. In an email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the “Houthi PC small group” a genuine Signal thread? Did they know that I was included in this group? Was I (on the off chance) included on purpose? If not, who did they think I was? Did anyone realize who I was when I was added, or when I removed myself from the group? Do senior Trump-administration officials use Signal regularly for sensitive discussions? Do the officials believe that the use of such a channel could endanger American personnel?
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”
William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, said that despite the impression created by the texts, the vice president is fully aligned with the president. “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations,” he said. “Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”
I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.
Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.
All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law’s definition of “national defense” information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.
Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and other Cabinet-level officials presumably would have the authority to declassify information, and several of the national-security lawyers noted that the hypothetical officials on the Signal chain might claim that they had declassified the information they shared. But this argument rings hollow, they cautioned, because Signal is not an authorized venue for sharing information of such a sensitive nature, regardless of whether it has been stamped “top secret” or not.
There was another potential problem: Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four. That raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records law: Text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved.
“Under the records laws applicable to the White House and federal agencies, all government employees are prohibited from using electronic-messaging applications such as Signal for official business, unless those messages are promptly forwarded or copied to an official government account,” Jason R. Baron, a professor at the University of Maryland and the former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told Harris.
“Intentional violations of these requirements are a basis for disciplinary action. Additionally, agencies such as the Department of Defense restrict electronic messaging containing classified information to classified government networks and/or networks with government-approved encrypted features,” Baron said.
Several former U.S. officials told Harris and me that they had used Signal to share unclassified information and to discuss routine matters, particularly when traveling overseas without access to U.S. government systems. But they knew never to share classified or sensitive information on the app, because their phones could have been hacked by a foreign intelligence service, which would have been able to read the messages on the devices. It is worth noting that Donald Trump, as a candidate for president (and as president), repeatedly and vociferously demanded that Hillary Clinton be imprisoned for using a private email server for official business when she was secretary of state. (It is also worth noting that Trump was indicted in 2023 for mishandling classified documents, but the charges were dropped after his election.)
Waltz and the other Cabinet-level officials were already potentially violating government policy and the law simply by texting one another about the operation. But when Waltz added a journalist—presumably by mistake—to his principals committee, he created new security and legal issues. Now the group was transmitting information to someone not authorized to receive it. That is the classic definition of a leak, even if it was unintentional, and even if the recipient of the leak did not actually believe it was a leak until Yemen came under American attack.
All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group—which, at the time, included me—“We are currently clean on OPSEC.”
