Hacker who beamed AI images of Trump kissing Elon Musk's feet was working during taxpayer-funded union time, report claims
The hacker who beamed AI-generated images of President Donald Trump kissing Elon Musk 's feet onto federal computers was working during taxpayer-funded union time, according to the New York Post.
The person behind the stunt at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was identified earlier this year as a high-ranking union official. However, their name has not been revealed as the matter is still under investigation.
The official was working for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 476, a whistleblower, who has not been identified, told Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst.
'Reports of union bosses playing childish games and illegally engaging in partisan political activity while on the taxpayers' dime are the latest in a string of concerning allegations against HUD employees in recent years,' the senator told the paper. 'From bureaucrats relaxing on the beach or sitting in a jail cell while on the clock, the agency has been the poster child for why taxpayer-funded union time needs to end.'
On Thursday, the president of AFGE Local 476, Dr. Ashaki Robinson, said the union 'unequivocally denies any involvement in the production or dissemination of the AI video featuring President Trump and Elon Musk.'
This 'baseless allegation is another transparent attempt to attack and retaliate against AFGE for engaging [in] lawful activity to advocate for our members and federal employees nationwide,' Robinson added to the Post. 'Official time amounts are negotiated and determined by both the agency and the union, and by law can only be used for employee representational matters, not for political purposes or internal union business.'
Ernst, the leader of the Senate DOGE caucus, shared the allegations from the whistleblower in a letter sent on Thursday to Housing Secretary Scott Turner.
'This improper access to the HUD computer system was not only childish and unprofessional, but also potentially illegal,' Ernst said in the letter obtained by the paper.
The AI-generated clip of Trump kissing Musk's feet played on TVs in a cafeteria at the department, and included the message: 'Long live the real king.'
The incident occurred earlier this year at the peak of criticism against Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency.
A spokesperson for the Department of Housing and Urban Development told the Post that it is 'exploring how to reform the expansive and oftentimes abused flexibility inherent in taxpayer-funded union time.'
'It is egregious [that] the American taxpayer is on the hook for subsidizing the paychecks of union workers while these nefarious actions take place,' the spokesperson added. 'The Department will continue to work with leaders like Senator Ernst to return HUD to its mission-minded focus and stop the wasteful abuse of taxpayer dollars.'
Ernst has previously criticized union time funded by taxpayers. As it stands, government employees are permitted to participate in labor activities during working hours. While government unions cannot negotiate pay and benefits, which are set by law, they can negotiate workplace issues.
The senator has requested data on taxpayer-funded union time from 24 agencies, and has advocated for legislation to end it.
The Office of Personnel Management found that in 2019, $135 million had been used for taxpayer-funded union time.
Federal workers can engage in policy advocacy; however, the Hatch Act states that staffers in the executive branch cannot participate in rallies or ask for donations for political campaigns during working hours.
The 19-second video of Trump kissing Musk's feet appeared on HUD screens in February on the day that federal workers were ordered back to the office after an executive order ended the practice of working from home.
The video played on a loop for five minutes on screens in the building, journalist Maria Kabas reported at the time.
'Building staff couldn't figure out how to turn it off so sent people to every floor to unplug TVs,' said Kabas, citing an anonymous source at the agency.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How Starmer became Reeves's biggest enemy
Rachel Reeves has one eye on the bond market and the other on her own backbenchers. The Chancellor has been forced to spend the last few weeks focusing on rebellions over benefit cuts and spending plans that she must stick to if she wants to balance the books. Now, though, her authority is starting to be undermined much closer to home. The latest challenge is not coming from investors, the Red Wall or Reform UK. Instead, it is the man next door – her partner at the top of the Government – the Prime Minister. Two bold announcements from Sir Keir Starmer shed some light on the issue. Starmer's pledge to restore the winter fuel allowance to pensioners and his hint that the cap on benefits for families with more than two children will be removed were welcomed by the party faithful. However, they have left Reeves to count the cost, putting Britain on a path to higher taxes in the autumn. Restoring winter fuel payments to all pensioners and scrapping the two child benefit cap entirely would cost a combined £5bn a year if each policy was fully reversed, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. That's a significant amount considering Reeves only has a £10bn buffer to meet a self-imposed goal of ending borrowing to fund day-to-day spending. But with less than a fortnight until she locks in Whitehall spending plans for the next three years, Starmer appears to have decided that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. For the Government, though, it will be seen as a sign of a breakdown in relations. This chaotic approach to policy-making is understood to have stemmed from growing tensions in Downing Street, particularly in the leader's office itself. Some blame Liz Lloyd, No10's director of policy, delivery and innovation. Lloyd, who also served as Sir Tony Blair's deputy chief of staff, is being singled out as the trigger of a wave of recent adviser departures, including one who was accused of 'mansplaining' the economy to Reeves. Lloyds is said to have clashed with Stuart Ingham, Starmer's longest-serving aide, who was appointed alongside career civil servant Olaf Henricson-Bell to run the No10 policy unit. 'They're all in each other's business,' says a source. 'Stuart threatened to resign if Liz was appointed. Yet they are both there and have a toxic relationship with each other. Olaf is fed up with both.' Several others in the unit are said to feel frozen out, although Labour Party HQ says it doesn't recognise the tensions and insists it is business as usual. However, few can deny that it is resulting in incoherent policymaking, including a flat-out denial of reports detailing changes to the winter fuel allowance that were subsequently vindicated just weeks later, and a Downing Street that doesn't look like it has anywhere near a majority of more than 170 seats. Another battle is under way over a cap on benefits that means that families can only claim child tax credit and universal credit for their first two children if they were born after April 2017. Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir's chief of staff, is said to be against the policy. Many of the Labour Left are making it their mission to reverse it. One Labour source summarises the party's dilemma. 'The two child cap is a political bind,' they say. 'On the one hand, how can the state subsidise poor people to have three kids when it's too costly for middle class couples to have one? On the other, how is it morally ethical for a Labour government to choose to keep kids in poverty?' At the same time, Starmer is facing the biggest rebellion of his premiership over £5bn in welfare cuts that will affect hundreds of thousands of people claiming disability benefits. Reports suggest another £500m climbdown is on the cards, in a move that could allow up to 200,000 people to keep their cash. However, it is understood that while options for further tweaks to the policy are on the table, changes are being kept on the back burner for now as Starmer and Reeves focus on other electoral carrots. Part of this will come from big spending in infrastructure in Red Wall seats to combat the threat of Reform. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) highlights that choices around health spending until 2030 will also determine how much other Whitehall departments receive. For example, if Reeves chooses to raise health spending by 3.4pc per year in real terms – or roughly the long-run average, departments outside defence face a 1pc real terms cut to their budgets. That's less funding for schools, policing and prisons. What's more, if Starmer wants to get defence spending to 3pc of GDP by 2030, it implies real terms cuts of 1.8pc. While it would not be anything like the austerity presided over by George Osborne as chancellor, for some departments where the low-hanging fruit was plucked a decade ago, it will feel like it. 'Sharp trade-offs are unavoidable,' the IFS warns in a report. Public sector pay continues to be a headache for the Chancellor. An announcement that public sector workers in England will receive a pay rise of between 3pc and 5pc this year – higher than the 2.8pc budgeted for by the Chancellor – will cost about £3bn. Reports suggest that as many as 50,000 civil service jobs could go as Reeves wields the axe as part of the Spending Review on June 11. But stopping the public sector workforce growing further above the current level of 6m will be a hard task. Keeping costs down while allowing those already on the payroll to be paid more is in theory a good idea. The IFS estimates that if public sector employment stayed constant between now and 2028–29, and the pay pot grew at 1.2pc each year in real terms in line with the overall spending envelope that has already been set out, pay awards could average 2.6pc per year in cash terms. However, Bee Boileau, an economist at the IFS, says this may not be realistic. 'Constraining the growth of the overall public sector will be tricky in the context of an NHS workforce plan that implies growth in the health service workforce of 3.1pc to 3.4pc per year, a manifesto promise to hire 6,500 more teachers, and a likely reluctance to reduce the number of police officers, prison officers or members of HM Forces,' she says. There is also a bigger problem: weak growth. JP Morgan believes Starmer's trio of trade deals with the US, EU and India will reduce borrowing by around £2.5bn. However, it thinks this will be more than offset by a tariff hit of £7.3bn and weaker growth delivering another £9bn blow to the public finances. This, together with a reversal on winter fuel, benefits for families and another fuel duty freeze is expected to turn a £9.9bn borrowing buffer into a black hole of around £15bn. Capital Economics says higher UK bond yields and expectations that interest rates will remain higher for longer also currently imply £4.4bn more will be devoted to servicing the Government's interest payments by 2030. It also warns that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is likely to say the Government's policy to cut migration 'by up to around 100,000 per year', will reduce growth 'and therefore raise the OBR's borrowing forecast by £6bn in 2030'. In short, there could be another £25bn of extra tax rises coming this autumn. With the threat of more tax raids around the corner, Starmer has voiced concerns about the fiscal watchdog itself. While its authority is not being questioned, the Prime Minister has asked why Reeves faces adjusting taxes and spending twice a year if she is deemed to have missed her borrowing rules when she only has one Budget. There is little appetite within Downing Street to change fiscal rules that have already been altered nine times in 16 years. 'Ripping up her so called 'iron-clad' and 'non-negotiable' rules only a year after introducing them could erode the Chancellor's political credibility,' says Ruth Gregory at Capital Economics. However, some in government are now thinking about whether one official economic forecast a year is more sensible. Such a move would require legislation. Either way, Reeves is likely to keep coming under pressure to spend more in the next few years. The bond vigilantes may be watching. But so is Starmer.
The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
When AI kills off the ScotRail lady, you know we're all in trouble
Then, one Saturday afternoon, when my wife was out, and I was alone, I picked up my phone like some dirty little pervert and downloaded an AI app. I told it my name and that I wrote books and asked if it had read them. 'Yes", the creature replied. Two points: first, I call AI a "creature" as it inhabits that "uncanny valley" between human and automaton which today elicits what's called "the ick". Second, the bugger was reading my books without paying me. Read more by Neil Mackay I asked if it had any ideas which might make a good subject for my next book. It spewed out weird amalgams of what I've already written. One suggestion was: write about an Iraq war veteran who returns to Northern Ireland, becomes a werewolf, and goes on a killing spree. My first book was a non-fiction account of my coverage of the intelligence war in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. My second book was a novel exploring the theme of "nature versus nurture" through a story about two children in Northern Ireland during the Troubles who drift into acts of senseless violence. My third book was also a novel, based on the true story of a serial murderer apprehended in 16th century Germany who was put on trial as a werewolf because the authorities had no understanding back then of psychopathy, so assumed the crimes were supernatural. This AI brute was a mere plagiarist – and a rubbish one at that. I felt slightly disgusted at how pathetic it was – the same sort of feeling I get when Donald Trump tries to talk about actual government policy. AI isn't some god-like intelligence, it's simply the dumb kid copying your class-work in school. I felt like the creature had carved lumps out of me, reduced me down to some stereotype, metaphorically lopped off my arms and legs like the Black Night in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and left me as a half-made caricature of myself. And isn't that precisely what AI does artistically? Look at all that AI slop out there online, drawings and video clips that are simply stereotype after stereotype, a regurgitation of human creativity, mediated through dead digital circuits, which emerges as derivative junk. It's like taking a Picasso, shredding it, feeding the pieces into a machine and then watching the machine puke out "Live, love, laugh" paintings. Is this the thing that's going to replace us? If we're dumb enough to believe that a device this talentless can supersede human creativity then we should just climb into our collective grave now and pull the mud over ourselves as a species. But this creature is replacing us. We are that dumb. Fletcher Mathers, the Scottish actress who voiced ScotRail announcements for 20 years, has just been unceremoniously binned for an AI version. To make matters worse, another actress, Gayanne Potter, has accused ScotRail of using her voice to "train" the replacement AI without consent. When AI kills off the ScotRail lady, you know we're all in trouble. Is this what we want? A world where we disappear and computers pretend to be us? I hate the very thought of that dead, sterile world. I get a visceral reaction now to AI in film or TV. If I see some street scene rendered in AI slop, bang goes the off button. The Oscar-winning movie The Brutalist shouldn't have received any awards. It used AI to make the lead actor, Adrian Brody, sound authentically Hungarian. I want actors to act, not be auto-tuned ventriloquist's dummies. I was looking around the dinner table last night at my family and a shiver went through me for some of their futures under AI. Writer, teacher, police officer, taxman, designer, lawyer. Who's for the chop first? I worry most about the taxman and designer. Keir Starmer has nothing left to offer but some suicidal rush towards an AI-state. Goodbye taxman. Private industry doesn't care if it chucks talent on the scrapheap to jack shareholder dividends. Goodbye designer. If AI was used to enhance humanity, rather than reduce us, I'd embrace it. I've been a technophile my entire life. But from the mid-2010s that love affair turned to technophobia as I saw what social media was doing to us as a species. Now, I'm almost a full Luddite. AI should be used to help doctors perfect cancer diagnoses, town planners eliminate traffic jams, and engineers make energy-efficient buildings to lower bills. Instead, AI is either used to create cultural crap – mountains of manure – or it exacerbates humanity's faults. 'AI is either used to create cultural crap – mountains of manure – or it exacerbates humanity's faults' (Image: PA) Use AI to sift job applications and you'll tend to find the CVs which rise to the top are from white guys. Why? Because earlier successful candidates were white men. AI reinforces our prejudices, as it simply studies those prejudices and repeats them. The same happens with AI and probation decisions. Most white prisoners go free, whilst black prisoners stay incarcerated. Why? Because the AI is simply repeating the bias it learned from all the previous decisions. The horror is: there's no going back. This thing is on the loose and it's in the hands of the maniacs who broke the world already with social media. It won't be the force for good it could be, its destiny is fixed as a force for evil. AI should be used as an obedient assistant which sits beside humanity, helping us make better decisions for ourselves and others. Instead, we're Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer's Apprentice. The broom is alive, yet it has no soul, no empathy, no mind, so it doesn't care if it destroys the world – and all at our cursed bidding. Incidentally, I deleted the AI off my phone forever. Neil Mackay is The Herald's Writer at Large. He's a multi-award-winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics.
The Herald Scotland
15 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Call for law changes to ensure ScotGov public inquiries are effective
It has come as it emerged the Scottish Government has admitted there is no legal requirement to monitor whether lessons learnt recommendations from inquiries are actually acted on. Those inquiries cover 20 years and range from the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry, the Vale of Leven Inquiry investigation into the occurrence of C. difficile infection to the the Stockline inquiry into the 2004 explosion at the ICL Plastics factory in Glasgow and the public investigation into the integrity of the fingerprint service. The current cost of all live inquiries has soared thirteen-fold over ten years to stand at nearly £180m and it is estimated the overall costs has reached nearly £250m since 2007. The cost of the five live major inquiries that are currently running eclipses the solitary one that was live ten years ago - and even those costs are spiralling. At the start of last year the live inquiries were costing £120m. Ten years ago the solitary major inquiry at the time into the Edinburgh Tram project came at a total cost of £13m. It was set up to establish why the capital's trams project incurred delays, cost more than originally budgeted and delivered significantly less than was projected. Edinburgh Trams were subject of an inquiry into soaring costs and delays But there are concerns that overall cost figures for inquiries could well be a lot higher as they do not include the costs to government departments, other public bodies and those participating. The Scottish Government was asked by a group of MSPs how many of the 197 recommendations, including 11 interim and a plan of action from a series of public inquiries since 2007 were implemented and what its role is in monitoring and ensuring lessons are learnt. But they were told that the law does not require ministers to act as overseer in this area, even though under the Inquiries Act 2005, the chairman of an inquiry must provide a final report to the ministers, setting out the facts determined by the inquiry panel and any recommendations where its terms of reference lay that out. Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, response to questions about which recommendations were actioned did not spell out what of the 200 lessons were actually acted upon from inquiries formally established by ministers. READ MORE by Martin Williams: Why does Scotland hold costly 'lessons learnt' public inquiries Ministers warned over public inquiries secrecy as taxpayer cost soars by £60m in a year Swinney urged to act over 'stalled' lifeline funding of ferry fiasco firm Revealed: £400k public cost of ScotGov Euro 2028 ticket tout ban that 'won't work' 'People going bananas': New ferry fiasco hits vital island supplies 'Stretched to breaking': Nation loses 800 officers since formation of Police Scotland Instead she states that the Act "does not contain any provision for centrally monitoring over whether the accepted inquiry recommendations are actually implemented". And she added: "There is no legal obligation to respond to a report." The questions related to recommendations of concluded public inquiries since 2007, and also include the Penrose infected blood probe. She further states in answer to questions about what lessons have been learnt, that in practice, an area of government "will be identified as responsible for taking forward recommendations (where appropriate) and ensuring delivery where they are accepted". She said recommendations may also be made by an inquiry relating to other parties, such as public bodies, "which would be for their consideration". The current cost of the two live inquiries into health-related issues including the Covid-19 pandemic currently stands at £64.3m. There were no live health-related public inquiries ten years ago, although in the decade previously, there were two which together cost £22.8m. Over £12m of legal and administrative costs has been incurred by NHS bodies alone responding to public inquiries since 2021. NHS National Services Scotland (NSS) which is a core participant in the long-running Scottish Covid-19 pandemic inquiry and has participated in two further public probes says it has spent £3.1m since 2021/22 in responding to public inquiries through legal and other administrative costs. On top of that a further £9m in legal services for public inquiries was provided to NHS Scotland boards by the NSS's Central Legal Office. NSS, which reports directly to the Scottish Government, and works at the heart of Scotland's health service, providing national strategic support services and expert advice to NHS Scotland, suggested an independent advisory body could be established to decide whether a public inquiry should be held and hold to account those probes that did go ahead. It suggested that the current processes for monitoring public inquiry costs are "inadequate" saying that they are not reimbursed "or reported consistently". The NSS said that the advisory body could have a role in assessing the costs. "Tight terms of reference are essential when a public inquiry is established to ensure value for money" they said. NSS said that the inquiries' effectiveness "can vary considerably". It said that work was needed to look at each concluded inquiry in Scotland against its terms of reference and examine what the has been achieved. It said that that would allow effectiveness "to be measured in more detail". It said a new advisory body could examine what opportunities there area for learning lessons, whether it would be effective and whether it would be value for money. It could also ensure a consistency of approach and oversee costs that are incurred. And it suggested that a law could be introduced to ensure that lessons are learnt from public inquiries, indicating that in terms of lessons learnt "consistency and cascading out can be challenging". The independent advisory body could "support consistency in cascading lessons learned". Section 28 of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Death etc (Scotland) Act 2016 introduced a requirement that those to whom recommendations are directed must provide a response within eight weeks to set out what changes have been made or are proposed. Alternatively it has to provide the reasons why no action is being taken. It suggested a similar law that is brought in for public inquiries "requiring participants in public inquiries to report to parliament with their written response to the inquiries' reports". Lord Hardie, the man in charge of the Edinburgh tram probe has admitted there were limitations when inquiries like the one he oversaw was established by the Scottish Government as non-statutory, which he says he was not consulted over. He has said in correspondence seen by the Scottish Government that this led to him being unable to access material held by the City of Edinburgh Council and resulted in the refusal of key witnesses to co-operate. The most expensive and longest running of the current probes is the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry into historical abuse of children in residential care that was formally established in October 2015 - ten months after the Scottish Government announced that it would happen. Concerns have been raised about delays and mounting costs - which was running at £78.211m at the start of last year and has risen to £95.3m as of March 2025. The second most expensive live public probe is the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry which started in August 2022 to examine Scotland's response to and the impact of the pandemic and to learn lessons for the future. It had run up costs of £12.816m by the start of last year. And by December last year it was at £34m. The Scottish Hospitals Inquiry chaired by Lord Brodie QC which is examining issues of safety and wellbeing issues at two Scots health establishments had cost £14.33m at the start of last year after opening in August 2020. It had risen to £23.6m in December 2024. It is examining complaints around the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in Glasgow, and the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People (RHCYP) and Department of Clinical Neurosciences in Edinburgh. Its final report is expected to be issued at the end of next year after calls for further evidence. The latest inquiry into Sam Eljamel, who harmed dozens of patients and left some with life-changing injuries, was launched last month and has racked up £1.08m in costs so far - before hearing any evidence. Mr Eljamel was head of neurosurgery at Dundee's Ninewells Hospital until his suspension in December 2013. He resigned a year later and is now believed to be operating in Libya. At the start of last year, the Herald revealed the cost of live inquiries at that point was at £120m, while the Scottish Parliament launched an inquiry last month into their cost effectiveness last month. MSPs are to further consider the role of public inquiries today. Research suggests the total cost of all public inquiries launched over the last 18 years, in today's prices, is at £230m so far. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Public inquiries are set up when no other avenue is deemed sufficient given the issues of public concern. In many cases, such as the Scottish Covid Inquiry, they are set up with the support of, or in response to calls from, the Scottish Parliament. "Public inquiries operate independently of government and the chair has a statutory duty to avoid unnecessary costs.'
