Musk denies using drugs after NYT report: ‘Lying their a‑‑ off'
'To be clear, I am NOT taking drugs! The New York Times was lying their a‑‑ off,' Musk wrote Saturday in a post on the social platform X. 'I tried *prescription* ketamine a few years ago and said so on X, so this not even news. It helps for getting out of dark mental holes, but haven't taken it since then.'
Musk was responding to a report from The New York Times on Friday about concerns over his drug use on the 2024 campaign trail. The Times reported Musk told people during the campaign he was using ketamine so often that it impacted his bladder, along with using psychedelic mushrooms and taking ecstasy.
The report cited photos and messages with people who knew him and claimed he would travel every day with a box containing 20 pills, some of which were marked as Adderall.
The Times defended the reporting in a post on X.
'Kirsten Grind and Megan Twohey's thoroughly sourced report provides an important and fair look into Musk's drug use and family conflicts,' the Times communication team wrote. 'They interviewed a dozen people who have known or worked with him, and saw private text messages, legal documents and photographic evidence.'
'Elon Musk is just lashing out because he doesn't like our article,' it continued.
The Times said Musk had multiple opportunities to reply or rebut the report before its publication.
'He declined, opting instead to try to distract with a social post and no evidence,' the team wrote.
Musk slammed the outlet a day earlier, telling reporters, 'Is The New York Times — is that the same publication that got a Pulitzer Prize for false reporting on the Russiagate? Is that the same organization? I think it is.'
President Trump, who sat next to Musk in the Oval Office, replied, 'It is.'
'I think the judge just ruled against New York Times for their lines about the Russiagate hoax, and they may have to give back their Pulitzer Prize. That New York Times. Let's move on,' Musk said, referring to a recent ruling permitting Trump's lawsuit against the Pulitzer Board to proceed.
Trump sued the board in 2022 over Pulitzers awarded for stories about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Lawyers for the Pulitzer Board urged the judge to pause the suit until Trump is no longer in office.
There is no indication that The New York Times's Pulitzer Prize award has been impacted as the case plays out in court.
Trump on Friday said he was not aware of Musk's reported drug use but signaled he was not concerned by it, calling the Tesla CEO a 'fantastic guy.'
The report was released on Musk's last day as a special government employee. Musk led Trump's Department of Government Efficiency efforts to reduce the size and scope of government.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: What Trump should be doing instead of attacking the Fed
Republicans have a problem. Their signature economic package for 2025, the tax bill President Trump signed into law in early July, is deeply unpopular. Voters think it will harm the poor and reward the wealthy, and sober analysis suggests they're right. The last time Republicans passed a law like this, in 2017, voters pummeled them in the subsequent election. As the leader of his party, President Trump bears responsibility for selling the tax bill to voters. He's not doing that. Instead, his main economic messaging effort this summer has been a sustained attack on the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell. Trump has routinely suggested he'll try to fire Powell, perhaps hoping the Fed chair will crack under pressure and quit before his term expires next May. He has hurled a dictionary of insults at Powell, calling him 'dumb,' 'stupid,' 'major loser,' 'knucklehead,' 'numbskull,' 'Mr. Too Late,' and 'the worst Federal Reserve chairman in history.' Since Powell has shown no signs of quitting, Trump has suggested he'll announce a "shadow" Fed chair who will offer different monetary policy guidance until Powell's term finally ends. Trump's war on Powell serves at least three purposes. His stated reason for browbeating the Fed is to compel sharp interest rate cuts to stimulate the economy. But Trump also has a penchant for creating villains he can blame when something goes wrong, and as head of a cautious central bank, Powell fits the profile. Trump also manages his many controversies by creating new kerfuffles to distract people from existing ones. Threatening mayhem at the Fed has been a way for Trump to deflect attention from tariff-related inflation, slowing economic growth, and now, the mushrooming Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The Fed is not really causing Trump any problems. It has kept interest rates steady since last December, one source of calm in financial markets otherwise roiled by Trump's tariffs and their many unintended consequences. The Fed most likely will end up cutting rates by later this year or early next, just not as dramatically as Trump wants. Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? Tax bill blowback should be a more pressing concern for Trump. As analysts figure out what's actually in the megabill, the political peril for Republicans becomes increasingly apparent. Most voters don't know all the details, but they already dislike the tax law and could oppose it even more strongly once it begins to affect real people. A recent CNN poll found that 61% of people oppose the bill while only 39% approve. Fifty-eight percent say Trump has gone too far in cutting federal programs, which most likely reflects the blunt-force DOGE cuts overseen by Elon Musk earlier this year. And in the CNN poll, approval for Trump's handling of the federal budget was a lowly 37%.In an Associated Press poll, 62% of respondents said the tax bill would help the wealthy, while just 20% felt it would help low-income people. The portion saying it would harm 'people like me' was twice the portion saying it would help. Trump's approval rating on handling the economy in that poll was a scant 38%, with 60% disapproving. Trump is now deeply underwater on what used to be one of his most winning issues. Voters are correctly assessing the complicated bill. The Yale Budget Lab found that the bottom 40% of earners would actually suffer a net loss of income from the bill, mainly because of cutbacks in food aid, Medicaid, and other health subsidies. The top 20% of earners would gain about $6,500 in annual after-tax income, while the savings for the top 1% would be $30,000. That's highly regressive, in that it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Healthcare cuts are likely to be a particularly controversial aspect of the legislation, which could increase the number of uninsured Americans by 11 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Other GOP policies could boost that number to 16 million within 10 years, and real people will start to feel the cutbacks in 2026. Republicans have essentially given voters every plausible reason to blame them for increasing healthcare costs, lost coverage, and medical disasters. Democrats will be eager to help heap it on. They're already erecting billboards near closing rural hospitals blaming Trump for the shutdowns. Whether such claims are accurate or not, Republicans put the target on their own backs. When Republicans passed a big tax-cut law in 2017, during Trump's first term, they thought voters would reward them for a bill that financially benefited a majority of Americans. It didn't work out that way. The law was unpopular from the start, with many Americans feeling it heavily favored businesses and the wealthy. While that law harmed few people, many felt it did nothing to help them. In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats outperformed, gaining 40 seats in the House of Representatives and retaking control of the chamber. The 2025 tax cut law is more punishing than the 2017 vintage, because of the cuts to food aid and healthcare. And Republicans have a far narrower edge in the House this time around. If the pattern holds, Republicans will take a beating in next year's midterms, losing the House and maybe the Senate. If Trump has a plan to prevent that, he might want to reveal what it is. The Fed will probably be cutting interest rates by the time of next year's election, blunting Trump's vilification of the central bank. He'll need somebody else to blame for everything voters dislike, unless he finds a way to persuade them that things are better than they think. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
6 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The Company Building Trump's Largest Immigration Detention Camp
The Trump administration has awarded a $1.26 billion contract to build and operate what would become the country's largest immigrant detention center at Fort Bliss, an Army base in El Paso, Texas. The work would turn the base, with more than 1 million acres of space and an airport, into a sprawling tent camp with 5,000 beds. The contract was awarded to a Virginia-based company that does not appear to have experience with detention. Immigration advocates warn the facility will likely not meet federal standards. Already, accusations of inhumane conditions have emerged in Alligator Alcatraz, a new tent facility in the Florida Everglade that Trump has suggested could be a model for other states. Read more from Sophie Alexander, Fola Akinnibi, and Rachel Adams-Heard today on CityLab: Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US
Forbes
6 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Trump's AI Action Plan Means For U.S. Tech Leadership
Washington, DC - January 23: AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks speaks with President Donald J Trump as ... More he signs executive orders in the Oval Office. On July 23, the Trump administration released its 'Winning the Race – America's AI Action Plan.' The administration's new AI action plan comes after months of policy shifts, industry dealmaking and public input. Here is a breakdown of what it contains and how we got to this point. In the plan's preamble, President Trump states: 'Today, a new frontier of scientific discovery lies before us, defined by transformative technologies such as artificial intelligence… Breakthroughs in these fields have the potential to reshape the global balance of power, spark entirely new industries, and revolutionize the way we live and work. As our global competitors race to exploit these technologies, it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance.' This sets the stage for a plan that acts as a blueprint for an acceleration strategy prioritizing infrastructure investment and innovation over regulation. The Journey of AI And American Leadership The administration's focus on AI dates from Trump's first term, when he became the first president to issue an executive order on the topic. Since 2019, maintaining and extending American leadership has been the priority. During the first week of his second presidential term, he issued a new directive to remove barriers to American leadership in AI, setting the tone for deregulation and positioning AI at the center of the U.S. geopolitical, trade and economic strategy. The plan announcement followed a flurry of activity during the first 180 days of Trump's second term. It started with the revocation, on inauguration day, of Biden's AI executive order viewed as an inhibitor to innovation with regulatory overtones, emphasis on equity, civil rights, enforcement of consumer protection laws and safeguards against bias, discrimination, infringements on privacy and other harms from AI. The January 23 executive order set the stage for 'innovation, driven by the strength of our free markets, world-class research institutions, and entrepreneurial spirit,' and asked for the creation of an action plan to 'sustain and enhance America's global AI dominance.' The National Science Foundation followed with a request for information to support the development of the plan. This resulted in more than 10,000 responses and exposed a divide between the industry and civil society. The industry supported the push for global leadership and resisted regulation. Civil society yearned for accountability and expressed concerns about job loss, copyright infringement, disinformation and privacy. Two major announcements signaled the private sector's central role in AI infrastructure buildout. In January, OpenAI, SoftBank, Oracle, and MGX launched Stargate, a $500 billion initiative to expand U.S. AI capacity. In July, companies pledged over $90 billion at the Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit to fund data centers and power infrastructure. Both efforts underscore a market-led push to scale AI while advancing U.S. technological dominance. On the government side, the White House moved to harness federal purchasing power to steer AI development. In April, the Office of Management and Budget directed agencies to appoint chief AI officers, publish AI strategies, and set rules for using powerful systems like generative AI. Their 'AI Use Memo' encouraged agency AI adoption and the removal of risk-averse barriers to innovation. A companion 'AI Procurement Memo' focused on buying American-made AI tools and simplifying procurement. Together, the policies use public-sector demand to influence industry behavior. Export controls on advanced AI chips also shifted sharply this year. In April, the administration imposed a ban on Nvidia's and AMD's processors, citing national security and limiting China's access. But by July, as part of a rare earths trade deal, restrictions were eased to allow sales with export licenses. Supporters said the move balanced security with economic interests; critics warned it could erode America's competitive edge. This policy reversal marked a notable departure from the Biden-era AI Diffusion framework. On the legislative front, Congress rejected a House-passed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulations when the Senate voted 99–1 to strip it from H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Instead, H.R. 1 was enacted, allocating funds for AI in defense, transformational AI models at the Department of Energy, and tech solutions for rural hospitals. With states able to legislate freely, the move increased pressure on the White House and Congress to work on federal legislation or preemption to avoid a patchwork of state laws. The AI Action Plan Unveiled at the 'Winning the AI Race' summit on July 23, the plan crystallizes a vision to ensure U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence. Introduced by President Trump and top officials, the plan rests on three pillars: accelerating innovation, building AI infrastructure, and leading international AI diplomacy and security. The 28-page document identifies over 90 federal policy actions across these three areas. During an interview with CNBC, Greg Barbaccia, U.S. Federal Chief Information Officer, called the plan a 'whole of government strategy.' It emphasizes removing regulatory barriers, expanding domestic chip manufacturing, and enabling large-scale adoption of AI across government and industry. Key policies in the plan include expedited and modernized permitting for data centers and semiconductor fabs, along with national initiatives to expand the skilled workforce, particularly electricians and HVAC technicians, to meet rising infrastructure demands. The plan also emphasizes exporting American AI leadership through full-stack partnerships with allied nations, combining chips, software, models and standards. It directs the Commerce and State Departments to coordinate with industry to deliver secure AI packages abroad. The plan outlines an ambitious international strategy to shape global AI norms and secure supply chains. It calls for engaging with like-minded allies while promoting interoperability and adoption of U.S.-led AI standards. To safeguard national interests, the plan includes policies to restrict outbound investment in adversarial nations, defend against intellectual property theft, and ensure AI infrastructure is free from foreign adversary technology, notably from China. This combination of infrastructure buildout and AI diplomacy aims to position the U.S. as a leader not only through innovation, but through standard setting, global commerce and adoption and diffusion of American technology. The plan calls for updates to federal procurement rules to ensure that frontier models used by the government are free from top-down ideological bias and aligned with principles of free expression. It offers no details on how this will be implemented. The document does not define how objectivity will be measured, which agencies will oversee compliance, or what enforcement mechanisms will apply, leaving execution to future regulatory or agency-specific action. A central pillar of the action plan is a sweeping deregulatory agenda aimed at removing federal and state barriers to AI innovation. The plan directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to launch a public Request for Information to identify federal rules that hinder AI adoption. Simultaneously, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 14192 'Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,' is tasked with working across all federal agencies to identify, revise or repeal regulations and guidance that unnecessarily constrain AI development or deployment. The plan also calls for integrating deregulatory criteria into funding decisions. Agencies are instructed to assess a state's AI regulatory climate and potentially limit discretionary funding to states with regimes that may impair program effectiveness. This can be seen as a direct reaction to the failed attempt at a moratorium for state-level AI legislation. Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is directed to examine whether state AI laws interfere with its federal mandates, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is instructed to review prior investigations and consent decrees to ensure they do not impose undue burdens on AI innovation. While framed as a strategy to streamline innovation, the plan's approach draws scrutiny about the politicization of regulatory agencies. The recommendation to use agencies like the FCC and FTC to roll back enforcement or pressure states on funding decisions has raised concerns among critics about potential federal overreach. However, aligning agency policy with national economic goals is both lawful and can be characterized as necessary to maintain U.S. competitiveness in a fast-moving global race. Importantly, the plan frames AI as both an economic and national security imperative. Frontier models must reflect American values and free speech, and infrastructure must be free of foreign adversary technology. The approach is explicitly deregulatory and pro-industry, with global ambitions. The action plan's release marks a major milestone in the administration's strategy to align public and private efforts around a unified AI agenda—and signals that Congress will now face pressure to translate these principles into national legislation. What This Means For The Future Of AI The plan marks a significant moment in U.S. tech policy. The document outlines a clear national direction that embraces acceleration, private-sector leadership, and deregulation as drivers of AI growth. It offers a coherent industrial policy that links AI development to economic competitiveness, infrastructure expansion, and national security. It will shape federal priorities, influence international AI diplomacy, and accelerate domestic capacity building in the months ahead. Yet the plan's deregulatory stance also reveals its limits. It largely disregards the concerns raised by civil society during the public consultation process, which emphasized transparency, accountability, and protections against disinformation, bias and surveillance. Instead, the plan places regulatory rollback and centralized control of agency behavior at the core of its strategy, raising questions about whether innovation is being pursued at the expense of democratic safeguards. The real test now shifts to Congress. With no comprehensive federal law in place, lawmakers will face growing pressure to translate this accelerationist vision into legislation that balances innovation with oversight, fosters growth without fragmentation, and builds public trust in the transformative technologies reshaping American life. Whether Congress can keep pace with this vision remains to be seen.
