
Trans pilot launches lawsuit against right-wing influencer over DC plane crash
A transgender servicewoman who was incorrectly named as the military helicopter pilot involved in the Washington, D.C. air disaster that killed 67 people in January has filed a lawsuit against a MAGA influencer who she says spread the rumors.
Jo Ellis is suing Matt Wallace, a conspiracy theorist with more than two million followers on X, for defamation over claims he 'concocted a destructive and irresponsible defamation campaign' about her.
The Equality Legal Action Fund, a nonprofit that provides legal support to discrimination victims, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Colorado, where the plaintiff's lawyers say Wallace resides.
Ellis, a 35-year-old helicopter pilot who has served with the Virginia Army National Guard for 15 years, was falsely named on social media as the person flying the Army Black Hawk helicopter, which collided with an American Airlines passenger plane over the Potomac River on January 29.
All 64 people aboard the jet and the three aboard the helicopter died in the crash.
'I've been a door gunner in a helicopter in Iraq during a combat zone, and I've been shot at in that same combat zone,' Ellis told The New York Times. 'But even for me, having a magnifying glass placed on my personal life in the wake of that rumor had a real impact.'
Such lawsuits face some constitutional and legal hurdles as free speech laws are broad. Ellis said any financial compensation she may receive would be donated to the victims' families.
Online rumors about the Richmond resident were fueled by President Donald Trump's jabs at the Federal Aviation Administration's diversity, equity and inclusion policies, suggesting, without evidence, they could be partly to blame for the mid-air collision.
One of them which had been reposted many times said that Ellis 'has been making radicalized anti-Trump statements on socials.'
Wallace was one of the more prominent influencers who spread misinformation about Ellis through a series of posts that included photographs and details of her life.
While some of Wallace's posts received millions of views, an analysis by The Times suggests that he did not start the rumor.
According to the social media monitoring tool Trends24, the conspiracy theory surrounding Ellis began on January 30 and trended on X with more than 90,000 posts by January 31.
That was the same day, two days after the deadly collision, that Ellis posted a 'proof of life' video on Facebook to prove she was in fact, alive.
'My life was turned upside-down at that point,' she said in the video. 'Forever on, I'm known as 'that trans terrorist.''
As a result of the post, Ellis received 'credible death threats' and hateful, transphobic messages, the suit alleges. Meg Phelan, Ellis' attorney, explained why they had 'zeroed in' on Wallace.
'He was one of the largest platforms with the most followers to really publicize this and put it out there, and so that it went viral,' she told The Guardian. 'It seemed very strategic, so that was really why we zeroed in on Matt Wallace.'
After the video spread online, Wallace deleted his posts about Ellis and stated he had an 'important update.' He said that she 'was not piloting the helicopter that crashed into the plane and is still alive.'
The lawsuit argues Wallace was 'making excuses for creating viral lies' after issuing tweets that he says were to correct the false information.
'Too many times do people who have big platforms get to do this to innocent people and drag them through the mud and get away with it,' Ellis told the newspaper.
'So I feel strongly about free speech, but I also feel strongly about consequences to free speech when you use it to stir up a mob and impact someone's life.'
The Independent
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
From banning X to funding Dems: All the ways Musk and Trump could hurt each other as they go nuclear
An alliance between the two most powerful men in the world seemed destined to blow up into a volatile feud yet somehow held ... until it didn't. Within a few hours on Thursday, the public spat between Donald Trump and Elon Musk exploded into debates over the president's impeachment, calls to launch primary challengers against Republican allies in Congress, and Musk's accusation that the president is implicated in a sexual abuse scandal. But how they choose to escalate from here could have far-reaching impacts — and not just for the fate of a massive bill that sparked their breakup. Trump and Musk command the world's attention, own competing social media platforms, and are each in a position to wield the power of the presidency and spend, and lose, billions of dollars against one another. How Trump could go after Musk Kill government contracts Trump has already suggested yanking government contracts for Musk's companies Tesla and SpaceX, which are due to receive at least $3 billion in contracts from 17 agencies. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his War Room podcast, Trump ally Steve Bannon urged Trump to retaliate against the world's wealthiest man by, among other things, using the Defense Production Act to take control of SpaceX. 'The U.S. government should seize it,' Bannon said Thursday. Cut off Elon's access to the White House Musk ended his 130-day 'special government employee' term in the Trump administration last week after serving as an 'adviser' to the president for the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which Musk unleashed across the federal government to make drastic cuts to spending and the workforce. But Trump left the door open for Musk to return. That 130-day term can be renewed next year. Trump could sever that arrangement at any time. Bannon also called on Trump to strip Musk's top-secret clearances, which he is granted in conjunction with his work on SpaceX and NASA. Make X illegal With more than 220 million followers on a social media platform under his control, Musk can use that audience and ability to shift media narratives against the president to advance his agenda. Trump, whose entire campaign was built on retribution, possesses executive authority to shut X down, according to experts. Trump could declare X a national security risk, 'which would permit him to ban the platform outright,' claims Devan Leos with AI platform Undetectable AI. The president could invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on national security grounds to prevent X from operating, which would likely trigger a high-profile legal battle. 'Musk now faces a difficult choice. He can ban Trump from X in retaliation, but that would almost certainly trigger an executive response from the White House,' according to Leos. The president, meanwhile, owns more than 100 million shares, or roughly 53 per cent, of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of social media platform Truth Social. His stake in the company is worth billions of dollars. Investigate Musk's immigration status and drug use Musk was born in South Africa before he emigrated to Canada and later the United States. Last year, The Washington Post reported that the billionaire worked in the country illegally before gaining citizenship. Bannon called on the president to deport him. 'Elon Musk is illegal. He's got to go too,' Bannon said on his War Room podcast. Trump also could wield the power of his office to initiate other investigations under a Department of Justice controlled by his fierce ally Attorney General Pam Bondi, including into allegations of his drug use at the campaign trail and within the administration. How Musk could go after Trump Flood opponents with cash The world's wealthiest person spent tens of millions of dollars supporting Trump's 2024 campaign. On Thursday, he took credit for his victory. But this year, his multimillion-dollar effort to support a conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate blew up in his face, with his DOGE efforts tanking his — and Tesla's — appeal. Still, Republican candidates fear being his target. Musk and his allies have threatened to fund primary challenges against any GOP member of Congress who supports legislation he doesn't. 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?' Musk asked on Thursday. Democrats agree with Musk that Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is a disaster but aren't necessarily welcoming him to the party after the right-wing billionaire torched government agencies and helped but Trump back in office. 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, whose district represents Silicon Valley, told Politico. 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.' Liam Kerr, co-founder of the centrist WelcomeFest meeting underway in Washington during the Trump-Musk feud, told the outlet that 'of course' Democrats should be open to Musk. 'You don't want anyone wildly distorting your politics, which he has a unique capability to do. But it's a zero-sum game,' Kerr told Politico. 'Anything that he does that moves more toward Democrats hurts Republicans.' Wield social media against the president It took just four hours for a feud playing out on two different social media platforms for Musk to drop what he called a 'bomb' against the president. 'Time to drop the really big bomb,' he wrote on X. '[Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' That loaded accusation — Musk's suggestion that Trump was involving the sex offender's trafficking scheme — appeared to be the tipping point in their feud. Musk, who just days ago seemed to have no problem associating with a man he is now alleging is implicated in Epstein's crimes, could launch a humiliation campaign against the president for an audience that has been largely disappointed with the Trump administration's approach to the Epstein case. Far-right influencers have turned on top federal law enforcement officials over the case, accusing Trump of continuing what they believe is a 'deep state' conspiracy theory covering up powerful people. Musk could leverage that hostility. Use DOGE against Trump Musk hired a small army of young loyalists and old allies for his government-wide operation to not only eliminate jobs and spending but extract reams of data from millions of Americans. DOGE's unprecedented access to Americans' data 'is alarming, made worse by the complete absence of meaningful oversight,' according to Ben Zipperer, a senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute. 'That unrestrained access to data will likely worsen the problem of identity theft in the United States, which could cost working families tens of billions of dollars annually.' A report from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's office also uncovered more than 100 instances that Musk allegedly abused his role as a 'special government employee' overseeing DOGE to benefit his private interests. Musk violated 'norms at an astonishing pace,' amounting to 'scandalous behavior regardless of whether it subjects him to criminal prosecution.' The report accuses Musk of using the government to promote his businesses, including turning the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom, and allegedly discovered roughly two dozen instances where the government 'entered or explored new lucrative contracts' with the billionaire while halting enforcement actions against his companies.


The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
AP PHOTOS: David Beckham to be awarded a knighthood by King Charles
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.


South Wales Guardian
4 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
US Supreme Court asked to pause order reinstating Education Department staff
The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court on Friday said US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the lay-offs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold. Mr Joun's order has blocked one of Mr Trump's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed. The judge wrote that the lay-offs 'will likely cripple the department'. But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on Friday that Mr Joun was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration. The lay-offs help put in place the 'policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states', Mr Sauer wrote. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in April voted 5-4 to block Mr Joun's earlier order seeking to keep in place Education Department teacher-training grants. The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Mr Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department. One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. The suits argued that the lay-offs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws. Mr Trump has made it a priority to shut down the Education Department, though he has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to do that. In the meantime, Mr Trump issued a March order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to wind it down 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law'. Mr Trump later said the department's functions will be parcelled to other agencies, suggesting federal student loans should be managed by the Small Business Administration and programmes involving students with disabilities would be absorbed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those changes have not yet happened. The president argues that the Education Department has been overtaken by liberals and has failed to spur improvements to the nation's lagging academic scores. He has promised to 'return education to the states'. Opponents note that K-12 education is already mostly overseen by states and cities. Democrats have blasted the Trump administration's Education Department budget, which seeks a 15% budget cut including a 4.5 billion dollar cut in K-12 funding as part of the agency's downsizing.