NY Times accuses Elon Musk of ‘continuing to lash out' at them over drug use report
The New York Times accused Tesla CEO Elon Musk of 'lashing out' against them on Tuesday.
In May, the New York Times published a report citing 'private messages' sent to them and 'interviews with more than a dozen people who have known or worked with him' that alleged Musk's drug use was 'more intense' than publicly known as he campaigned with then-candidate Donald Trump in 2024.
Advertisement
'Mr. Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use,' the NYT reported. 'He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he traveled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall, according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it.'
Musk repeatedly denounced the article and called out the Times by posting the results of a recent drug test on his X account on Tuesday.
The paper's communications team responded to the results, saying that Musk was 'continuing to lash out' against them and stood by the story.
'Elon Musk is continuing to lash out because he doesn't like our reporting. Nothing that he's said or presented since our article about his drug use during the presidential campaign was published contradicts what we uncovered. We stand by our journalism,' the NY Times Communications account wrote.
Advertisement
3 The New York Times accused Tesla CEO Elon Musk of 'lashing out' against them on Tuesday.
AFP via Getty Images
3 In May, the Times published a report citing 'private messages' sent to them and 'interviews with more than a dozen people who have known or worked with him' that alleged Musk's drug use was 'more intense' than publicly known.
REUTERS
The NYT gave the same response after Musk challenged the New York Times and Wall Street Journal to release the results of their own drug tests.
'Great idea. I hereby challenge the NYT and WSJ to take drug tests and publish the results! They won't, because those hypocrites are guilty as sin,' Musk wrote.
Advertisement
The back-and-forth between the New York Times and Musk has been ongoing since the article was published on May 30.
3 Musk repeatedly denounced the article and called out the Times by posting the results of a recent drug test on his X account on Tuesday.
X/elonmusk
One day after the story was published, Musk wrote on X that the NYT was 'lying their a– off' and insisted that he had not taken ketamine in years.
The NY Times Communications account pushed back on Musk at the time, similarly accusing Musk of 'lashing out' but with 'no evidence.'
Advertisement
'Kirsten Grind and Megan Twohey's thoroughly sourced report provides an important and fair look into Musk's drug use and family conflicts. They interviewed a dozen people who have known or worked with him, and saw private text messages, legal documents and photographic evidence,' the NY Times Communications account wrote. 'Elon Musk is just lashing out because he doesn't like our article. We provided Musk with multiple opportunities to reply or rebut this reporting before publication and he declined, opting instead to try to distract with a social post and no evidence.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Myth of the Gen Z Red Wave
Are the kids all right-wing? Donald Trump won the 2024 election thanks in part to increased support from young voters. Some experts see this as a sign of a generational sea change. As the prominent Democratic data scientist David Shor pointed out in a recent podcast conversation with the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, 75-year-old white men were more likely to support the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, than 20-year-old white men were. 'Young people have gone from being the most progressive generation since the Baby Boomers, and maybe even in some ways more so, to becoming potentially the most conservative generation that we've experienced maybe in 50 or 60 years,' Shor said. If Shor is right—if Gen Z (now ages 12 to 30) is durably to the right of previous generations—a significant part of the Democratic coalition is gone. Luckily for the party, however, he probably isn't. The best available evidence suggests that the youth-vote shift in 2024 was more a one-off event than an ideological realignment. Faith Hill: The not-so-woke Generation Z The Cooperative Election Study, one of the largest politically focused surveys of Americans, goes back to 2006 and just released its 2024 data. Those data aren't perfect—they have yet to be validated against the voter file, meaning they are based on self-reported voter turnout. But they are still a much better source for studying generational shifts than data from just one year, like Shor's. The CES is also more comprehensive than the average election poll, asking about voters' ideological self-identification, party affiliation, and views on specific issues. Consistent with other reports, the CES data show that young adults (ages 18 to 29) voted for Trump in 2024 at a much higher rate than they did in 2020. The trend was especially pronounced among young men, whose support for Trump increased by 10 percentage points since 2020, compared with 6 points for young women. Although some recent polling suggests that 18-to-21-year-olds were more likely to support Trump than 22-to-29-year-olds, the CES data show the younger and older subgroups voting for Trump at near-identical rates in 2024. Young adults were also more likely to vote for Republican House candidates than in 2020, though the change was not as large as in the presidential race. But voting for a Republican candidate isn't the same as identifying as conservative. Here is where the CES data cast doubt on the notion that Gen Z is an especially right-leaning generation. According to my analysis of the CES data, young adults have actually become less likely to identify as conservative in surveys during presidential-election years since 2008. The trend is not due to increases in the nonwhite population; fewer white young adults identified as conservative in 2024 (29 percent) than did in 2016 (33 percent). What about young adults' positions on specific political issues? For the most part, they are more liberal than previous generations. (No single definition of generational cutoffs exists. In my research and writing, I define the Millennial generation as being born from 1980 to 1994, and Gen Z from 1995 to 2012.) In the 2024 CES survey, 69 percent of young adults supported granting legal status to undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of felony crimes and who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least three years, up from 58 percent in 2012, the last year all 18-to-29-year-olds were Millennials. Also in the 2024 survey, 63 percent agreed that 'generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class,' up from 42 percent in 2012. Support for legal abortion among young adults rose from 46 percent in 2012 to 69 percent in 2024, though the question was worded somewhat differently in those two years. Only one belief shifted in the conservative direction: 62 percent of young adults in 2024 supported increasing border patrols at the U.S.-Mexico border, up from 45 percent in 2012. From the May 2023 issue: The myth of the broke Millennial The trend looks different if we look at data on partisanship rather than ideology. The Democratic Party has steadily been losing market share among young adults since 2008, mostly because young people have grown likelier to identify as independents; Gen Z is only slightly more Republican than Millennials were at the same age. These young independents tend to vote for Democrats, but, given their lack of party affiliation, their votes are more likely to swing from one election to the next. Indeed, most of the change over the past two elections appears to have been driven by young independent voters breaking for Trump in 2024 when they didn't in 2020. Given that young voters have not become more likely to identify as conservative or hold broadly conservative political opinions, Gen Z might not be the disaster for Democrats that Shor and others are predicting. The 2024 election might have been an anomalous event in which young people's deep dissatisfaction with the economy, especially the inflation that hit their just-starting-out budgets, drove them to want change. Another distinct possibility is that, going forward, Gen Z will vote for whichever party is not currently in office. Gen Z is a uniquely pessimistic generation. In data I analyzed for my book Generations, Gen Z high-school seniors were more likely than previous generations at the same age to agree with the statements 'It is hard for me to hold out much hope for the world' and 'I often wonder if there is any real purpose to my life in light of the world situation.' Young Americans today are also unconvinced that their country is anything special: Only 27 percent of high-school seniors think the U.S. system is 'still the best in the world,' down from 67 percent in the early 1980s, according to a long-running national survey. If young people's attitudes persist as they get older, Gen Z might never be pleased with how things are going in the country. They'll want to 'vote the bastards out' in the next election no matter which party is in power. Compared with the idea of a new and persistent conservatism in young voters, a generalized pessimism bodes better for the Democrats in 2026 or 2028. But if Democrats regain power, Gen Z might turn on them once again, repeating the cycle in an endless loop of political dissatisfaction.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Heidi Stevens: Shutting down hotline services for LGBTQ+ youth is malice by Trump administration
There's cost-cutting, and then there's cruelty. President Donald Trump's administration appears determined to blur that line to the point of indistinction, using the former, over and over, to justify the latter. The decision to abruptly shut down the LGBTQ+ portion of a youth suicide and crisis hotline — a service that has no doubt saved countless lives — is the latest example. The Trevor Project, a nonprofit focused on suicide prevention for LGBTQ+ youth, received a stop work order, effective July 17, for the crisis services it provides to the national 988 suicide and crisis hotline. Since 2022, the group has provided crisis services to LGBTQ+ youth who contact the 988 Lifeline by offering them the option of being connected to counselors trained specifically in mental health for individuals who identify as LGBTQ+. After July 17, the 988 Lifeline will remain in place, but will no longer provide specialized LGBTQ+ crisis counseling. A White House spokesman told the New York Times that the specialized portion of the hotline had 'run out of congressionally directed funding,' and continuing to fund it would jeopardize the entire operation. 'This is devastating, to say the least,' the Trevor Project wrote in a statement. 'Suicide prevention is about people, not politics. The administration's decision to remove a bipartisan, evidence-based service that has effectively supported a high-risk group of young people through their darkest moments is incomprehensible.' Trevor Project counselors helped about 500,000 people in 2024, 231,000 of whom came through the 988 line, Zach Eisenstein, a spokesman for the organization, told The New York Times. Trevor Project is encouraging people to visit to help fight the decision, which Congress could, in theory, reverse. It's unconscionable that it's come to this. It's unconscionable that the physical, mental and emotional health of young people is on the chopping block because of who they are and who they love. It's unconscionable that our leaders, elected to serve and protect us, are instead finding new ways, daily, to degrade our humanity. I called my friend and former podcast partner John Duffy, a clinical therapist who specializes in adolescent mental health, to get his take on the hotline shutdown. I wanted to hear from someone whose funding isn't being cut, but who is nonetheless on the front lines of suicide prevention. I trust Duffy like no other on this topic — for his wise and enormous heart, for his evidence-based approach to helping young people and because he lost his own brother to suicide in 2001. He is, in a word, heartbroken. 'By the time a kid feels inclined to call a hotline,' Duffy said, 'they are hopeless and they don't feel understood. If you are in the LGBTQ community and you feel hopeless and misunderstood, you don't have the luxury of shopping around. You need someone on that line who understands you now.' LGBTQ+ youth often face family rejection, cultural rejection, discrimination, fear of personal violence, losing their civil rights — issues that call for an intentional, specified approach to care, Duffy said. 'Their mental health is a very delicate space,' he said. 'They need and deserve people who can handle that space with care. And to take that away when they're in a crisis state? It's lethal.' Duffy said he began hearing from his clients as soon as the order made headlines. 'It feels to them like things are just going to get worse,' he said. 'They feel like they're being targeted directly. They feel like they're not going to have the support they need. They feel hated by massive groups of people just by virtue of who they are.' Often, he said, his LGBTQ+ clients are struggling to accept themselves even as they're struggling for acceptance from the people they know and love. 'Many of them aren't comfortable with the idea of being L, G, B, T or Q,' he said. 'It's confusing and perplexing to them, even as they're trying to make other people comfortable with it. And the chance that they reach out in crisis and they hang up feeling unheard and misunderstood? The chance that their suicidal ideation remains, or they make a move to take their lives? That all just increased exponentially.' There is zero defense for this. Zero. Straight kids are impacted by the decision as well, Duffy said. They worry about their LGBTQ+ friends. They wonder what kind of world they're graduating into, growing into, and maybe, one day, bringing their own kids into. Hope feels hard for them to come by, he said. 'It's another indication of the depletion of the humanity of our systems,' he said. And for what? For cost-cutting? I don't buy it. The cruelty is the point. And it's costing us dearly.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Transgender Care for Minors
Hosted by Natalie Kitroeff Produced by Shannon M. LinNina Feldman and Stella Tan Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Tobin Original music by Diane WongDan PowellMarion Lozano and Elisheba Ittoop Engineered by Chris Wood The Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling this week that effectively upheld bans on some medical treatments for transgender youth in nearly half of the United States. Azeen Ghorayshi, who covers the intersection of sex, gender and science for The New York Times, explains the scientific debate over the care, and why the court's decision leaves families more in the dark than ever. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Azeen Ghorayshi is a reporter covering the intersection of sex, gender and science for The New York Times. The Supreme Court's decision, allowing Tennessee and other states to ban gender-affirming care for minors, was a crushing blow for the transgender rights movement. 'The Protocol' podcast explains where youth gender medicine originated and how it became a target of the Trump administration. There are a lot of ways to listen to 'The Daily.' Here's how. We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode's publication. You can find them at the top of the page. The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon M. Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez, Brendan Klinkenberg, Chris Haxel, Maria Byrne, Anna Foley and Caitlin O'Keefe. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam, Nick Pitman and Kathleen O'Brien.
