Blue Press Journal

Tag: elon musk

  • America is Being Bought by Billionaires

    NOVEMBER 3, 2026

    Voters across the nation are heading to the polls for the 2026 midterms, which are expected to be the most expensive Congressional race in US history. The significant increase in money in politics is being driven by a small group of super-rich donors with the biggest name being billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk.

    Comic text reads “AMERICA IS BEING CONTROLLED BY BILLIONAIRES” and “THE SHADOWY HANDS OF EXTREME WEALTH CONTROL OUR FATES, ONE ASSET AT A TIME,” with labels “INFLUENCE PURCHASED,” “LAND SEIZED,” “REAL ESTATE,” “MEDIA,” “LAND SEIZED,” “VOTES MANIPULATED,” “PUBLIC RESOURCES,” and “POLITICAL POWER.”

    Musk has donated around $446 million of his own wealth (a drop in the ocean for the world’s richest man) to the 2026 cycle in an effort to help ensure the Republican Party retain their slim grip on both houses of Congress. Almost half (around 50%) has gone to the Texas Senate race to help Ken Paxton (Attorney General) win against Democrat James Talarico who is ahead in recent polls.

    Musk is the largest donor of the cycle, but a report from OpenSecrets on Monday shows just how much 14 other billionaires and their partners have spent.

    These include long-time GOP donors Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein who have donated almost $150 million to conservative candidates this cycle. Billionaire investor and school-choice advocate Jeff Yass has also put in over $110 million to help Republicans win the midterms.

    “I think it’s quite clear why Elon Musk and the billionaires are throwing so much money into this race. They want to ensure that Trump and his Republican Congress work for them and not for working families. We can defeat them. We need to organise, organise, organise.” Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said over the weekend.

    The only Democrat in the top 5 individual donors this cycle is former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has donated over $83 million.

    As with previous cycles, the large donors have made use of campaign finance laws which allow unlimited donations to independent political committees like Super PACs. These groups are allowed to spend any amount of money promoting or opposing candidates as long as they remain independent from official campaign committees.

    According to data from OpenSecrets, the total amount of money spent on the 2026 midterms will be around $11.9 billion, beating 2024 to become the most expensive Congressional race in US history.

    Super PACs must be transparent with where their money comes from, however they often get money from middlemen who are not bound by these rules.

    Judd Legum, creator of the Popular Information newsletter, noted on Tuesday that $1.4 billion of the money raised this cycle comes from non-profits who do not disclose who their donors are according to federal records.

    “This includes both money moved from these non-profits to super PACs and direct spending by the non-profits. We’ve never seen so much dark money in politics. Contributions from groups with unknown donors are over six times greater than the 2018 midterms.” Legum added.

  • THE SHADOW COMMANDER: How Elon Musk’s Private Control of Starlink and Starshield Blurs the Lines of National Security

    Private Control Blurs the Lines of National Security

    By Winston Wendell

    In the high-stakes theater of modern warfare, a terrifying precedent has quietly been set. Through an interconnected web of low-Earth orbit satellites, the boundary between commercial innovation and sovereign military might has effectively vanished—with a single civilian holding the pen.

    An illustration of Earth from space with two satellites labeled V1 and V2, projecting beams of light onto the surface, highlighting patterns resembling Olympic rings.

    According to defense and legal experts, Elon Musk’s alleged role in the deployment of Starlink and the potential bleedthrough of classified information and infrastructure with Starshield presents a national security risk and a potential lawbreaking offense.

    “Mr. Musk that ordered this, that is likely a violation of the law because he has authority and decision-making authority over Starlink, the civilian commercial product, but not Starshield, which is a military-grade national security tool,” one source stated. “No individual civilian should have any decision-making authority on how that’s deployed.”

    Legal experts have identified the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq.) and its accompanying International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) as the primary legal tools which place jurisdiction over national defense systems like Starshield under the aegis of the Department of Defense, with the President Trump serving as the sole approving authority.

    By virtue of federal law, any and all forms of defense-related equipment, technology, and information must be treated as national security assets and can only be deployed by the Federal Government.

    Additionally, experts have cited the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Department of Defense (DoD) contracts as the legal mechanisms which prohibit a private citizen from exerting control over military assets on the scale of Starshield without violating the Uniformed Services Acquisition and Procurement Act. In short, a private contractor-turned-billionaire cannot dictate the usage of military-grade satellites without violating federal law.

    When a private corporate titan can pivot sovereign military communication networks at whim, the state effectively subcontracts its foreign policy to the boardroom. As verified investigations continue to unpack the nexus between SpaceX and the Pentagon, the urgent question remains: Who actually commands America’s orbital defense?

  • Digital Kill Switches: Why Does Big Tech Always “Accidentally” Silence Dissent?

    by Winston Wendell

    Say you’re ready to take the floor at a major rally, you find the mic and turn it on, only to realize, behind your back, someone has pulled the plug.

    A person speaking on stage, wearing glasses and a black shirt, gesturing with one hand.

    That’s exactly what happened to members of the progressive “No Kings” coalition, when, on Saturday afternoon, social media giant Meta mysteriously nixed the group’s Instagram presence just as activists were flooding into streets across America.

    While the account was restored within two hours, campaigners were left fuming after being blocked for several hours at the height of the action, and, when they inquired as to why, Meta responded by saying they “made a bad choice.”

    Not long afterwards, Meta representative Andy Stone would attempt to further clarify the situation, arguing that the anti-monarchy agitators’ sudden disappearance was the result of their “rampant posting” which triggered the social media giant’s spam filters. Stone claimed, in a since-deleted tweet, that the coalition’s “accelerated activity” had “raised flags” with the platform’s “automatic systems,” and that, as a result, the account had been “inadvertently restricted” and they “take responsibility for that and apologize.”

    Not everyone was convinced.

    Advocacy group Indivisible cofounder and “No Kings” coalition member Leah Greenberg was especially unimpressed with the response, arguing that, “This excuse does not match the facts,” and demanding a full investigation and assurance that it would never happen again.

    The controversy even spilled over into Washington, where Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) called the move “outrageous,” and threatened to bring the company before congress if Democrats gained control of the legislature in the 2026 elections, and Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) accused them of censoring free speech in order to “cater to [President] Donald Trump.”

    One Woesky Among Many

    As much as Murphy and Van Hollen might wish it were the case, the No Kings incident is not, by any stretch of imagination, an outlier.

    It also happened to be the day that another social media giant, TikTok, quietly deplatformed the online home of an independent film distribution company, Bleecker Street, which had been promoting an upcoming four hour documentary about Elon Musk by director Alex Gibney.

    According to Hollywood Reporter, the offending videos had been removed from the application, with TikTok arguing that the content violated their policy on political material.

    While the two companies have no direct relationship, TikTok does have business ties with Oracle co-founder and billionaire investor Lawrence Ellison, who is featured in the film giving a large donation to Elon’s Twitter, in a particularly embarassing scene for the tech mogul.

    An issue with algorithms runs deeper than just individual politicians and film makers, however.

    Across the world, in Brazil, social media networks continue to be accused of favoring one political party and platforming another.

    According to reports, the presidential re-election campaign of leftist candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has accused Meta of suppressing posts supportive of their candidacy in favor of right-wing incumbent Jair Bolsonaro, going so far as to take the matter before the electoral court.

    Representatives for Lula’s campaign allegedly argued that their social media posts were being “systematically canceled” with little to no visibility on the platforms, while posts by Bolsonaro supporters were given widespread exposure by being placed at the top of the feed, compared to regular users’ content, and receiving higher engagement metrics.

    The court agreed, ordering Meta to cease and desist from any practices which might “give an advantage or disadvantage to candidates based on an ideological preference.”

    Meta would go on to deny any accusations of bias, arguing in a legal filing that campaign officials were “seeking to exploit an alleged antipathy towards President Bolsonaro” by accusing them of interference in the election.

    While it could be a case of either bad spam filters or plain old censorship, it seems that, wherever it occurs, algorithmic suppression always has political consequences of some sort for those who’s speech has been silenced.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Did a Secret Deal Occur? Hushed Speculation Erupts Around White House Order to Hinder Starshield in Ukraine

    Did Donald Trump make a deal with Russia?

    October 16, 2026

    Washington is abuzz with hushed speculations of a secret deal after reports suggested that the White House effectively ordered the limitation of Starshield, a SpaceX satellite system, in Ukraine.

    Close-up of a man seated at a table, wearing a navy suit and blue tie, with an expression of contemplation, in front of an American flag.

    According to several American and Western officials, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, the order came from the White House itself. It reportedly instructed the Pentagon officials to limit the use of the critical security system that has been used extensively by the Ukrainian military, which includes the provision of secure communications as well as drones.

    It remains unclear who in the White House sent the order, but the mere fact of it has caused confusion and suspicion. Some think that the order was meant to placate Moscow for the diesel deal, while others believe it to be a sign of a secret deal between the two nations. With the fate of the war hanging in the balance, interference from a third party, such as the United States, would send shockwaves throughout the international community. As members of Congress are set to raise questions about the nature and origins of the order, further speculation will inevitably arise regarding the potential for a secret deal between the US and Russia.

    If Democrats retake Congress this fall, expect aggressive hearings and investigations into this move against an ally.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Starlink Restrictions in Ukraine Spark Urgent Warnings Over Reliance on Elon Musk’s Tech

    October 14, 2026

    On Tuesday night, the Ukrainian government announced that its access to SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service had been restricted. The news ignited a wave of criticism, with some accusing the government of being foolish to rely on the technology of Elon Musk — a far-right billionaire.

    Comic panel reading “ELON MUSK: ARCHITECT OF THE FUTURE!”, “The stars are just the beginning…”, “WHOOSH!”, “KRA-KOOM!”, and “RUMBLE!” with Elon Musk and a rocket.

    According to the New York Times , Ukrainian authorities believed that the order restricting Starlink came “from Washington” as the U.S. president Donald Trump pressured Kyiv to end the war in order to prevent attacks on Russian energy facilities ahead of the 2026 congressional midterm elections.

    Musk — who is the largest donor to Trump’s campaign and has donated more than $276 million to the Republican Party since July — has been under pressure to rein in payments for SpaceX contracts, which totaled $1.5 billion in 2023.

    Ukrainian military observer Serhiy Beskrestnov wrote on social media about the sudden limitation of Starlink coverage. “Ukrainian military have not received any warnings about this Starlink withholding, which has caused several mission failures for us,” he said. The reason for the problem was, according to him, “obviously connected to the current situation in Washington.”

    The Kyiv Independent noted on Wednesday that Starlink has several uses for the Ukrainian military, including “its mid-strike campaign in Russian-occupied Ukraine, as well as interceptor drones that defend against Russia’s new jet-powered attack drones.”

    The Polish minister of foreign affairs, Radoslaw Sikorski, reacted particularly strongly to the news. He wrote on social media: “Hey, Elon Musk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European clients, we are watching you.”

    Ian Bond, deputy director of the Center for European Reform, believes that the episode “should set off a siren in all defense ministries in Europe.” “There needs to be a lot more urgency in getting out capabilities that are autonomous, not subject to the caprices of the United States, for early warning of attack, for countering ballistic missiles, for communication with one’s armed forces or for controlling offensive weapons,” he said.

    Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator at the Financial Times , believes that “the Starlink restriction over Ukraine is a perfect illustration of the danger of relying on US technology.”

    Steve Peers, professor of EU law and human rights law at Royal Holloway, University of London, believes that “it is time for democracies to treat Elon Musk and his companies as a geopolitical adversary.” Peers wrote on his blog that if Musk “is going to (in effect) assist Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, then sanctions against Starlink, X and Tesla ought to be imposed by Ukraine’s allies.”

    Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, believes that he has been warning governments for three years about the dangers of relying on the technologies of Elon Musk. “The problem is too much power – and that is dangerous, especially for an opponent of democracy,” Grossman wrote.

    Grossman also criticized the Biden administration, which has been accused of not taking the threat from Musk seriously enough. “While Biden was turning a blind eye to Musk’s threat to democracy, the latter spent hundreds of millions of dollars bankrolling Trump’s electoral campaign and presidential transition,” he wrote.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • The GAO Finds That DOGE Budget Reports Were Misleading

    NEWS REPORT by Winston Wendell

    According to a report released on Thursday, the Department of Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE, led by Elon Musk himself, was making up figures about the amount of money it was saving the country. The report was requested by Democratic senators Gary Peters of Michigan and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and was conducted by the Government Accountability Office.

    DOGE was found to have used “misleading practices” when it came to canceled leases and active government contracts. Additionally, the audit found that the department provided insufficient evidence for the methods used in 96 percent of the canceled grants.

    The Department of Government Efficiency was also found to have failed to follow their own formulas when it came to calculating figures for canceled leases and contracts, and in the cases where they did follow their formulas, they either missed out on the details or did not disclose them when they should have. When they did follow their own procedures, the Government Accountability Office found that they overlooked the complexities of government contracts, including liabilities and penalties that come with breaking a contract before the due date.

    “The report shows that the Trump administration’s cost-saving mission was conducted in a misleading fashion, achieving little apart from putting at risk taxpayer data and key programs,” said Senator Peters.

    “President Trump and his allies in the Senate and House have been using DOGE as a fig leaf to hide tax-cut giveaways to the wealthy and large corporations while pretending to save the deficit,” said Senator Blumenthal.

    Many people have responded to the report, including Jessica Tillipman, associate dean of the GWU School of Law, who specializes in government procurement. Tillipman cited several errors she found on the social media accounts of DOGE, one of which being a claim that the department had saved $28 million reduction in expenditures for an Air Force agreement, whereas the actual financial relief amounted to roughly $600,000 from a canceled lease. “That figure doesn’t account for the present value of future lease payments, which would reduce the supposed $3.7 million savings,” Tillipman said.

    “DOGE’s fiscal wins were mostly fictional,” write Reason editor-in-chief Eric Boehm, who covered the story for the libertarian magazine. “According to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, the Trump administration’s claims about savings from slashing federal spending were often based on faulty math.”

    “DOGE may soon start spending more taxpayer money, but at least the government watchdogs are forcing Musk’s agency to be more open about how it spends our money when it comes to cutting back federal services,” concluded Senator Blumenthal.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Republicans Block Democratic Effort to Release Epstein Files: What are they Hiding?

    In a move that has sparked controversy and raised questions about transparency, Republicans in the House of Representatives have thwarted a Democratic attempt to force a vote, Tuesday, on releasing the files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The effort, led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), aimed to require Attorney General Pam Bondi to preserve, compile, and publish the Epstein files, but was ultimately unsuccessful.

    The Democrats had framed the procedural vote as a referendum on whether Republicans wanted the Epstein files to be released, or whether they would side with President Trump’s request to keep them under wraps. By opposing the motion, Democrats argued that Republicans were effectively blocking the release of the files, which could potentially shed light on the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death and the alleged wrongdoing of those involved.

    The Epstein case has been a source of intense public interest and scrutiny, with many calling for greater transparency and accountability. The fact that Republicans have now blocked an effort to release the files has raised suspicions about what they might be trying to hide. As one Democrat noted, “Republicans spent years screaming for the Epstein Files to be released. Now Donald Trump wants to hide them.” This sudden about-face has led many to wonder what has changed and what the Republicans might be trying to conceal.

  • The Epstein Files: What is Trump Hiding?

    The Trump administration’s decision to block the release of certain files related to Jeffrey Epstein’s activities has sparked widespread speculation and concern. As the country grapples with the extent of Epstein’s crimes, many are left wondering what Donald Trump may be hiding.

    Trump’s friendship with Epstein, which dates back to the 1990s and early 2000s, has been well-documented. In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine, Trump described Epstein as a “terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with.” However, this friendship has raised questions about Trump’s potential involvement in or knowledge of Epstein’s illicit activities.

    The release of Epstein’s files has been met with significant redactions and potential omissions, including flight logs and contact books. Many speculate that these omissions are deliberate attempts to protect certain individuals, including Trump. The concerns surrounding these redactions have only added to the growing suspicion that the Trump administration is attempting to conceal information that could be damaging to the President.

    Despite promises from Trump and other top figures in his administration to release the Epstein files, the documents remain largely hidden from public view. In February, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that the Epstein client list was “sitting on my desk right now,” but it has yet to be released. Trump himself has repeatedly stated that he would release the files, but so far, this has not happened.

    Recently, Elon Musk, who had a falling out with Trump last month, accused the President of being “in the Epstein files.” This claim has sparked further speculation about Trump’s potential involvement in Epstein’s activities. In a 2017 interview with author Michael Wolff, Epstein even claimed that at one point he was Trump’s “closest friend.”

    As the country demands answers about the Epstein files, one thing is clear: the American people will not be silenced. The MAGA movement, once a unified force, is now divided over the issue of Epstein and Bondi The question on everyone’s mind remains: what is Trump hiding? Who are the rich and powerful individuals being protected by the Trump administration’s suppression of the Epstein files?

  • Republicans are Undermining Government Accountability in Pursuit of Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

    Congressional Republicans have consistently voiced their commitment to a more efficient, cost-effective, and accountable federal government. However, a closer look at their proposed budget cuts reveals a potential contradiction that could ultimately harm American taxpayers. 

    As part of the FY2026 Legislative Branch funding bill, Republicans are pushing for a dramatic $396 million cut to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent investigative arm of Congress. This represents a staggering 49% reduction in the GAO’s budget, potentially leading to the elimination of over 2,200 of its roughly 3,500 employees.

    This proposed cut raises serious questions about the true intent behind Republican rhetoric on government accountability. The GAO plays a crucial role in identifying waste, fraud, and abuse within federal agencies. By conducting rigorous, non-partisan audits and investigations, the GAO helps Congress and the public understand how taxpayer dollars are being spent and identify areas for improvement.

    Democrats argue that decimating the GAO’s workforce would leave only “skeletal staffing,” severely hindering its ability to effectively monitor government spending. This could result in federal taxpayers losing out on potentially tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, which the GAO routinely identifies through its investigations.

    The proposed cuts have sparked accusations that Republicans are prioritizing tax cuts for wealthy individuals at the expense of average American taxpayers. By weakening the GAO, they argue, Republicans are essentially removing a key watchdog that helps ensure responsible use of taxpayer money. This lack of oversight could lead to increased waste and mismanagement, ultimately burdening American families with higher costs and fewer essential services.

    It remains to be seen whether these proposed cuts will ultimately be enacted. However, the debate surrounding the GAO’s funding highlights a fundamental tension between Republican promises of fiscal responsibility and their willingness to potentially undermine a crucial institution dedicated to promoting government accountability. As the budget process moves forward, it is vital for lawmakers to carefully consider the potential consequences of these cuts and prioritize the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.