FTC probes Media Matters over Elon Musk's X boycott claims, document shows
The US Federal Trade Commission has demanded documents from Media Matters about possible coordination with other media watchdogs accused by
Elon Musk
of helping orchestrate advertiser boycotts of X, according to a document seen by Reuters on Thursday.
The civil investigative demand seeks information about Media Matters' communications with other groups that evaluate misinformation and hate speech in news and social media, including a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called Global Alliance for Responsible Media. X has ongoing lawsuits against both organizations.
The probe, first reported by Reuters, marks an escalation in U.S. government scrutiny of whether groups like Media Matters helped advertisers coordinate to pull ad dollars from X after Musk bought the social media site formerly known as Twitter in 2022.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Crossout 2.0: Supercharged
Crossout
Play Now
Undo
The demand seeks all documents Media Matters, a Washington, DC-based liberal advocacy group, has produced or received in the X lawsuit related to advertiser boycotts. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who was appointed by president
Donald Trump
to run the agency, highlighted the potential for a probe in December.
"We must prosecute any unlawful collusion between online platforms, and confront advertiser boycotts which threaten competition among those platforms," Ferguson said in a statement on an unrelated case.
Live Events
Media Matters President Angelo Carusone said on Thursday that the Trump administration has "been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics."
Discover the stories of your interest
Blockchain
5 Stories
Cyber-safety
7 Stories
Fintech
9 Stories
E-comm
9 Stories
ML
8 Stories
Edtech
6 Stories
"It's clear that's exactly what's happening here, given Media Matters' history of holding those same figures to account. These threats won't work; we remain steadfast to our mission," he said.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican member Jim Jordan, accused the Global Alliance for Responsible Media last year of coordinating an illegal group boycott. The initiative was shut down in August.
A spokesperson for the FTC declined to comment.
World Federation of Advertisers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
An investigative demand is not proof of wrongdoing, and not all investigations result in the FTC taking enforcement action. Advertising spending on X is set to increase in 2025 for the first time since Musk bought it in 2022, research firm Emarketer said in March, but it remains below its pre-Musk level. The Tesla CEO was a major donor to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign and runs his initiative to slash the federal workforce.
Last year, X sued the World Federation of Advertisers and a group of major brands in federal court in Texas, accusing them of illegally conspiring to curtail ad spending. The group has asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit, contending that advertisers chose other platforms based on their concerns about X's commitment to brand safety.
Media Matters and X are battling each other in federal courts in Texas and California. X sued Media Matters in 2023, accusing the organization of defaming it in an article that said ads for major brands had appeared next to posts on X that touted far-right extremist content. Media Matters has denied the allegations, and sued X, accusing it of abusive, costly and meritless lawsuits to punish the group for its reporting on advertising on X after Musk purchased the site.
The organization has said defending against X's claims has cost it millions of dollars.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Is Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump a teaser for his political ambitions? Rumors spiral as 'Muskians' weigh in
In an unexpected twist that's rippling through political and tech circles alike, Elon Musk and Donald Trump—once perceived as two towering allies of influence—are now locked in a public spat that's as volatile as their personalities. The feud , which has evolved from sharp remarks to veiled accusations, is fueling whispers of a deeper political pivot for the Tesla and SpaceX boss. Could this be Musk's unofficial campaign trailer for a future role in politics ? From Compliments to Cold Wars The dramatic fallout began when Trump, speaking alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, commented coolly on his past rapport with Musk: 'Elon and I had a great relationship… I don't know if we will anymore.' The remark came after Musk voiced criticism of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill (BBB)—a sweeping debt-cutting proposal. Trump quickly countered, accusing Musk of attacking the bill to safeguard Tesla's electric vehicle subsidies. Musk didn't hold back. In a stunning escalation, he suggested on social media that Trump may be implicated in the "Epstein files," sending speculation into overdrive. The insinuation lit up the internet, while Trump fired back with threats to strip Musk of his multi-billion-dollar government contracts, suggesting this would be a quick way to 'save billions' in the federal budget. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo Political Chess or Genuine Rift? As the drama unfolded, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie stepped in with a striking perspective. Massie dismissed the idea that Musk was ever driven by tax incentives, claiming the billionaire's involvement with political figures had cost him more than it gained. 'So many politicians get into politics for personal benefit,' Massie said while talking with Fox News . 'Elon's motivations go beyond that.' According to Radar Online, t his clash has left the Republican base visibly shaken. Trump loyalists are reeling, struggling to reconcile their admiration for both men. Some online users, affectionately dubbed "Muskians," appear to be navigating what commentators are calling the 'seven stages of political grief.' And with Musk increasingly weighing in on legislative matters and electoral dynamics, some believe he's testing the waters for a deeper dive into the political arena. You Might Also Like: Donald Trump vs Elon Musk feud sparks meme fest online: From WrestleMania edits to Simpsons spoofs A New Kind of Candidate? Massie's suggestion that Musk should engage more with primary elections than general contests is telling. Not all Republicans are cut from the same cloth, and Musk's vocal criticism of Trump-era policies—paired with his ever-growing influence—could position him as a disruptive force within the GOP, or even beyond it. Critics argue that Musk's interventions highlight a broader shift in conservative politics, where tech moguls and billionaire capitalists wield growing influence over party ideology and public discourse. But the tension also exposes a deeper fear: that Musk, with his staggering wealth, massive online following , and visionary allure, could reshape political engagement altogether—perhaps as a candidate, or at least as a kingmaker. — RepThomasMassie (@RepThomasMassie) From Boardroom to Ballot? For now, Musk hasn't made any formal moves toward a political office. But the ferocity of his feud with Trump, paired with his increasing interest in legislative decisions, is leaving many to wonder: is this more than a battle of egos? Is it a preview of a seismic shift in American political leadership? Whatever the truth may be, one thing is clear—the Musk-Trump rift is more than just personal. It's political, it's public, and it might just be the start of Elon Musk's most uncharted journey yet. You Might Also Like: Elon Musk's estranged daughter Vivian revels in his rift with US President Donald Trump: 'Love being right' You Might Also Like: Trump vs Elon Musk: Why are they fighting? Tesla CEO makes explosive claim about US President's Epstein files connection
India.com
39 minutes ago
- India.com
Why is Trump desperate for a trade deal with China? Know the SHOCKING reasons that brought US to its knees due to...
(File) China Rare Earth Elements: After assuming office for his second Presidential term in January this year, Donald Trump instigated a trade war with China by imposing exorbitant import tariffs on Chinese good. However, nearly six months later, the US President is desperately seeking a trade deal with Beijing to prevent key American industries from collapsing. Here's the reason why Trump made a U-turn on China, and is appeasing the Asian power to seek a China-US trade deal. Why US bent the knee to China? China dominates the global supply of rare earth elements, which are used by the US defense industry to manufacture advanced weapons and defense systems like radar systems, fighter jet engines, etc. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, China controls more than 90 percent of the world's processing and refining of rare earth elements, and also leads in other refining an extraction of other critical minerals like refined gallium, of which it controls 98.8 percent of global production. In recent years, Beijing has leveraged its dominance in critical mineral production and refining as a major negotiating point in trade wars, as well as targeting the defence industries of the US and its allies. The US defense industry is majorly dependent on China for rare earth minerals, but the supply has been nearly halted due to the ongoing US-China tariff war. China has imposed an export ban on rare earth elements to the US, effectively weaking the Pentagon's Pentagon's military preparations and weapons manufacturing capabilities. How China pressured the US into submission? In July 2023, Beijing imposed export controls requiring Chinese exporters to seek permission to ship eight gallium-related and six germanium-related products to other countries. In August last year, the list was expanded to include antimony, and in December, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce imposed export restrictions on gallium, germanium and antimony to the United States, as Beijing anticipated a trade war when Trump assumed office. In April this year, Beijing imposed export restrictions, mandating special export licenses for seven categories of medium and heavy rare earth elements (REEs) – samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium – as well as magnets and other finished products containing these REEs to be shipped out of China. China's sweeping restrictions on REEs brought defense manufacturing to a halt in US and its allied countries, as supplies of rare earth minerals required for weapons' manufacturing rapidly thinned out. Why US requires large quantities of REEs? The United States is world's largest arms manufacturer and its defense sector requires a gargantuan amount of rare earth minerals to manufacture advanced modern weaponry such as precision-guided missiles, stealth fighter jets, naval warships, submarines and advanced radar systems. According to various reports, the US-made F-35 stealth fighter incorporates over 400 kg (900 lbs) of REEs in each unit for its jet engines, avionics, munitions and radar systems. The F-47, US' Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter jet, is expected to contain even larger amounts of critical minerals, due to cutting-edge features like unmanned flight, artificial intelligence integration, and next-gen stealth capabilities. Similarly, US navy warships and submarines require giant quantities of REEs, with Virginia-class submarines requiring 4,200 kilograms and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers needing 2,360 kilograms of REEs for their radars, munitions and other technologies. US Predator drones, Tomahawk missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) smart bombs, and advanced radar systems all rely on rare earth elements for propulsion, targeting, and guidance. According to experts, more than 80 percent of the Pentagon's weapon system supply chains contain antimony, gallium, or germanium. Does US have REE resources? While the US does have rare earth resources, those pale in comparison to China's gigantic hold on global refining and processing of REEs. The US accounts for around 15 percent of global production of REEs, but its not enough to meet the rare earth needs of US industries, especially the defense sector. Since 2020, the Pentagon has invested $439 million to build domestic supply chains in critical minerals, and a $35 million contract was awarded to MP Materials in 2022 for a heavy rare earth processing facility. However, its supply chain is still miniscule compared to China, and thus needs to import a major chunk of REEs from Beijing. In 2024, MP Materials announced a record production of 1,300 tons of neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) oxide for producing neodymium magnets, while China produced an estimated 300,000 tons of NdFeB magnets in the same year. China's antimony dominance Additionally, the US does not have any mining facilities for gallium, while China reportedly produced 750 of the 760 tons of primary low-purity gallium produced worldwide in 2024 and is known to have production capacity of up to 1,000 tons. China also holds about 48 percent of the world's mined antimony, controls 98.8 percent of refined gallium production, and is responsible for 59.2 percent of refined germanium production. All these critical minerals are used in the manufacturing of advanced weapons, ranging from armor-piercing bullets, night vision goggles and cables, to nuclear weapons and naval warships.
NDTV
44 minutes ago
- NDTV
'Harvard Is Starting To Behave': Donald Trump On Student Visa Row
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Education Secretary Linda McMahon noted progress in universities addressing Trump's demands for transparency on international students. She emphasised the need for vetting to combat antisemitism and advocated for merit-based admissions over DEI programs. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said that she is seeing "progress" from institutions regarding the Trump administration's demands. Trump in an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had said that, 'We want to have foreign students come. We're very honoured by it, but we want to see their list." She echoed the same sentiments. 'Harvard didn't want to give us the list. They're going to be giving us the list now. I think they're starting to behave, actually, if you want to know the truth,' the president added. In May, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard University, stating that if Harvard wants the opportunity of regaining Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification before the upcoming academic school year back, they should provide the "information required" within "72 hours". The information included the list of students who had participated in pro-Palestine protests. McMahon defended the attacks on universities such as Harvard and Columbia and said, 'I have seen progress. And you know why I think we're seeing progress? Because we are putting these measures in place, and we're saying we're putting teeth behind what we're looking at,' in an interview to NBC News. She added that there still is a long way to go to eradicate antisemitism on campus and vet international students. 'It's very important that we are making sure that the students who are coming in and being on these campuses aren't activists, that they're not causing these activities,' McMahon said. The Education Secretary said that students who come on campus should not be afraid to be there and should not feel unsafe. 'I'm really happy to see what Harvard did, but I wonder if maybe they didn't get a little spur from our action, because they talk a lot about it, but I think we really started to see a lot of their actions once we were taking action,' she acknowledged. She gave Trump the credit for pushing the universities to take steps to combat antisemitism on campus. This comes after Trump signed a proclamation that aims to deny foreign students from studying at Harvard. In May, a federal judge had blocked Trump's ability to enrol foreign students. Answering if international students will have to leave Harvard, if already enrolled, she said, 'Well, that's actually more up to the State Department than it is to Department of Education", and added, "we have to do more careful vetting.' Amid accusations on Harvard and Columbia of fomenting antisemitism, Trump had cancelled $2 billion in grants to Harvard and $400 million in grants to Columbia. McMahon added that there was an imbalance in diversity on Campus because, 'only 3% of [Harvard's] faculty were conservatives.' 'Do you think that's a diversity of viewpoint on campus? Because those — you can't possibly believe that,' she added. 'And I do think that that's one of the things that Harvard and Columbia and other universities are taking a serious look at, is, what is that balance?' She said that Harvard and other universities "need to do a better job" in that. McMahon also defended Trump's efforts to eliminate DEI programs on college campuses and said that she favoured merit-based admissions instead. 'What we found when we admit students through merit and meritocracy and, and their studies, that diversity comes on campuses by itself,' McMahon said. 'You don't need to have a particular program that says we have to have diversity, equity, inclusion.'
