logo
Why Musk's DOGE Moves Are ‘Just Like the Twitter Takeover' - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Audio

Why Musk's DOGE Moves Are ‘Just Like the Twitter Takeover' - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Audio

CNN14-03-2025

David Chalian
00:00:01
Hey, everyone, I'm David Chalian, CNN's Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director, and welcome to the CNN Political Briefing. Earlier this week, President Trump stood on the White House south lawn in front of a row of new Tesla vehicles. In what amounted to nearly 36 minutes of free advertising for the electric car company, trump pitched both the vehicles and the company's owner, Elon Musk, to the American public. Since Musk took on a major role at the White House and became closely associated with the MAGA brand, Tesla has seen sales drop.
President Donald Trump (clip)
00:00:38
They love the product. But because he's finding all sorts of terrible things that have taken place against our country, they want to penalize him in an economic sense. And I just think that's very unfair.
David Chalian
00:00:50
As the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, Musk is leading Trump's charge to shrink the federal government by cutting spending and eliminating federal jobs. But applying that "move fast and break things" mentality of Silicon Valley to the federal government is certainly not sitting well with Democrats and even some Republicans, and clearly not that well with the American people. A new CNN/SSRS poll this week showed just 35 percent of Americans expressed a positive view of Elon Musk. Musk is new to Washington, but what can we learn about his approach to DOGE from how he's led his companies? Kate Conger is the coauthor of the book "Character Limit," a detailed account of Musk's takeover of Twitter, now called X. And she continues to report on Musk and X for The New York Times. She joins me now to share her insights on Musk and the parallels she sees in his management of Twitter and DOGE. Kate, thanks so much for joining us.
Kate Conger
00:02:08
Thank you for having me.
David Chalian
00:02:09
'So I guess I want to start at the 30,000-foot level and tap into your expertise on all things Elon Musk, as you have observed him before he got involved in government and politics and since, and that's where I want to start, is sort of, do you see any similarities in his approach to what he's doing with DOGE to anything he did with his companies? I mean, I know, the "Fork in the Road" memo was similar from Twitter, but overall the approach here, does it feel familiar to what you observed in his private sector work?
Kate Conger
00:02:43
Yeah. And, you know, it's funny, I feel like a broken record because I just keep saying over and over again, this is just like the Twitter takeover. There's so many things that Musk has pulled from that experience to fashion what he's doing now with DOGE. And I think he really views Twitter as a success story, actually, and thinks that the cost cutting that he did there was really effective and really essential. And that's the model that he's looking to replicate. So, I mean, you see the parallels, not just in the "Fork in the Road" email like you mentioned, but also the people that he's bringing in to advise him. Many of them also worked on the Twitter deal. You know, some of the approaches to getting rid of real estate is something that he tried at Twitter, the mass layoffs, the encouraging people to resign. These are all things that he tried in those first few months after that purchase and really viewed as a success.
David Chalian
00:03:35
And yet, we all know running a company and working in the government are not the same thing. I mean, obviously, I think everyone believes government could be run more efficiently. I would be surprised if you could meet an American who doesn't believe that the federal government can run more efficiently, but in what you're saying, since you see so many similarities, was there sort of no surprise for you in the headlines of what was coming out of his efforts in DOGE, or that he didn't adjust his approach because he's not the CEO here in the government. I mean, he is an advisor to the president. He's not the top dog, ostensibly. And yet, as you note, his approach seems similar. Did that surprise you?
Kate Conger
00:04:19
Him wanting to take this approach is not a surprise. He's really been clear about that, and he's actually a very sort of repetitious person. He makes the same movie references over and over again. He cracks the same jokes, and so to see him reach for this familiar playbook was not a surprise at all. I think what is surprising to me is that Trump has allowed him to do all of this stuff basically unchecked. Going into this, I was thinking there may be some potential for Trump to feel like, you know, he didn't have as much power as he wanted, and that Elon was kind of steamrolling him. And it actually seems like they've had a pretty productive working relationship, and Trump isn't uncomfortable with that. That part of it is a surprise to me.
David Chalian
00:05:00
You had mentioned some of the people who were advising him and helping him and working for him at Twitter, he brought over to this government efficiency effort. Can you tell me a little bit more about Elon's world, if you will? Like, who are these people that are supporting him in this effort in the government?
Kate Conger
00:05:19
Sure. So he tends to operate in a really small circle. He doesn't trust a lot of people, and he keeps the few people that he does trust very close. So one of the people who he's brought over to help run DOGE is a guy named Steve Davis, who's worked with him at SpaceX, at The Boring Company and at X after the transition to help cut the budget. Steve has been really intimately involved in the current work on DOGE. Another example, I think, is Michael Grimes, who is his lead banker on the Twitter deal. He's come in and done some work with Treasury and DOGE, and is someone that Musk really trusted to make that transaction happen, and I think, you know, you see that trust continuing into these new roles in government. And then even some of the kids who are working on DOGE kind of at the lower level, some of them have experience with his other businesses who had worked for Musk, either at X or Tesla or SpaceX. So again, you see him kind of tapping into this pool of trusted candidates who he already knows.
David Chalian
00:06:22
And when you say kids, we're not talking about child labor laws being violated here. They're young adults, but yes.
Kate Conger
00:06:29
Yes, they're 20 year olds. I should not be calling them kids. It's a bad habit.
David Chalian
00:06:34
I think we all do that. I agree with you about the sort of, I also was surprised that Trump has given him as much leeway as it seems that he has given him. And there was all that talk when the TIME magazine cover came out with Musk behind the Resolute Desk, and if that was going to upset Trump, and then yet we did see, you know, Trump responded a bit to some of the blowback he was getting from his cabinet officials, from some Republicans on the Hill. And there were these reports of him trying to rein him in a little bit. But then we learn of this explosive cabinet meeting from your colleagues at The New York Times, where he gets apparently into a heated back and forth with Marco Rubio, a heated back and forth with Sean Duffy, the transportation secretary. What did you make of that report, and what do you make of the fallout from that becoming public, and how Rubio and Duffy sort of responded or how Musk responded after the fact?
Kate Conger
00:07:33
Well, I think that reporting was so interesting because it reflects, again, these kinds of things that Musk returns to over and over. One of them is asking for the specific data. He really likes to ask for that when he's feeling challenged and make someone prove their point to him. And you saw him do that with Secretary Duffy where he said, give me the names of the specific air traffic controllers that you've been asked to fire. And Duffy couldn't do it. And so that's an interaction that Musk feels like he's won, and Duffy is lying to him because he wasn't able to pull these names out of a hat and provide them. And so it's really interesting to see him kind of engage in that rhetorical device over and over again.
David Chalian
00:08:14
Perhaps that's what led to the unfollow on X.
Kate Conger
00:08:18
Yes, so the fallout like, yeah, is really interesting. You know we saw him and Marco Rubio go on X and kind of patch things up. And then with Duffy he went and unfollowed his accounts, and I think was sort of dismissive of him. So, you know, it's interesting to see how his relationships with the cabinet members shifted after that meeting.
David Chalian
00:08:36
I mean, Rubio went on X to really try and say, no, no, no, I'm doing the stuff you asked us to do. We've cut 83% of the programs at USAID. Thank you, DOGE. You know, I mean, it seemed like Rubio did not want to be perceived as in an antagonistic place to Elon Musk, despite the fact that he's the Secretary of State.
Kate Conger
00:08:56
Right. Yeah. And I think there is a lot of uncertainty right now between Musk and the cabinet members about who is in charge. And we saw this with these emails going out that Musk sent, asking people to list five bullet points of things they accomplished during the week, and then some of the cabinet members pushing back and saying, my agency reports to me, they don't report to Elon Musk. They're going to tell me what they did this week, but you don't have to tell him. And so I think there is a little bit of tension there, and people are kind of trying to figure out where their power stops and where Musk's begins.
David Chalian
00:09:30
We're going to take a quick break. We're going to have a lot more with Kate Conger in just a moment.
David Chalian
00:09:47
Welcome back. We're here with New York Times reporter Kate Conger talking about all things Elon Musk, which has just got to be one of the most fascinating beats for a reporter to be on. I do wonder what you and how you approach in your reporting and thinking — it's not as if Elon Musk is a disinterested party to the United States government. I mean, his private companies get a lot of contracts from the United States government. Is there anything in your reporting or your research into him that would indicate that while he's doing this government assignment, he is very much keeping in mind how the work is benefiting perhaps his companies?
Kate Conger
00:10:27
Definitely. I think that that is very much front and center. And, you know, we saw recently him and Trump going onto the lawn at the White House and doing basically a commercial for Tesla. There are so many conflicts like that. And I personally see it actually a lot with X in the way he's tried to reshape that platform to basically be a pulpit for the administration. You know, he himself does a lot to promote Trump, obviously, but he's also set up all of these DOGE accounts on X: the main DOGE account itself and then all these individual agency accounts for DOGE updates and tips. And so he's really kind of fuzing the platform with the administration in really interesting ways and making it kind of, I don't know, a new media empire. And I think that that is an interesting conflict that's starting to emerge in addition to, I think, the more obvious ones, the federal contracts that he has with SpaceX and Starlink.
David Chalian
00:11:24
We have a brand new poll out this week from CNN that shows Musk is not wearing well with the American people broadly. He's at a 35% favorable rating with the American people, according to our newest poll. And that's largely driven by Republicans rallying around him. He's got like a 75% favorable rating with Republicans, but more than 6 in 10 of independents, 60% of independents, have an unfavorable view of Musk. I mean, he's — those are not numbers that anybody in public life would want to see. And you noted the sort of commercial on the south lawn for Tesla. His stock, obviously, in Tesla was taking a beating in large part, I think, to political opposition to some of the cuts he's been putting forth in his role in DOGE. And, clearly, Trump wanted to boost him. How much do you think Musk is consuming how his own personal brand is being affected by this assignment he's taking on? I mean, all of these guys are obviously very, you know, these are big egos, right? And like, he's a player as the richest man in the world on a very unique space and all of that. But, you know, if his stock goes down because of what he's doing, if his numbers are bad with the American people, will we see Musk change course or alter in any way from any of the history of him that you followed?
Kate Conger
00:12:46
'You know, I don't think so. I mean, he is someone who's so self-assured, and when he becomes uncertain, often what he'll do is run a poll on X and ask his followers, hey, should this be happening? Famously, we saw him do this at Twitter when he was still the CEO. He ran a poll saying, should I remain CEO? And his followers said no. And he said, okay, fine, I'm going to find another CEO and step out of the role. And he's done that recently, asking his followers, is DOGE doing a good job? Do you support what I'm doing? And I think when he runs those polls, it's a sign that he's feeling the pushback. But I think X has shifted so far to a platform that is for and about Elon Musk, that all of those polls now go in his favor. You know, he's not having people saying, hey, yeah, you should step down, and you probably shouldn't be CEO of the government. It's just people who are his fans who are voting in those, and he takes that as affirmation that he's doing a good job. I've never seen him pay attention to poll numbers before, but he did share some the other day that were again favorable to him. And I wonder if that's coming out of his connection with Trump and knowing that Trump is interested in poll numbers and so wanting to demonstrate interest in that and show that he has support.
David Chalian
00:14:00
What did you make of that image at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference outside of Washington, D.C., a few weeks back, where he held up a chainsaw on the stage?
Elon Musk (clip)
00:14:11
This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.
David Chalian
00:14:15
I mean, it's instantly become an image that Democrats are putting in their campaign ads already. But I'm just wondering if that was sort of classic Musk or not.
Kate Conger
00:14:24
'Yeah. So something that he's really into is recreating memes in real life. And we had this in some reporting recently where he had his desk set up in the Eisenhower Executive Building with a DOGE sign on it. When we published the photo, people were responding and pointing out to me that one of the periods is missing. So it's, you know, there's not a period after every letter in the DOGE acronym. And people are asking me, why is that? It's because he made that sign based on an AI-generated image, and the AI had left out a period. So he did it as well when he recreated it in real life. So he has this real penchant for trying to take memes and make them into reality. And I think that was a big part of what was going on at CPAC. You know, he kind of had this, this meme idea of himself as the government cost cutter. Obviously, he's taken a lot of inspiration from Milei, who's come up with the taking a chainsaw to government metaphor and gifted him the chainsaw onstage. And so, you know, he's kind of pulling on all of these online references to create his image and create these kind of viral moments that he knows are then going to go on X and go viral there.
David Chalian
00:15:33
'It has sounded to me in some of what Trump has described, you know, Musk is not anticipated to stay for the duration of the whole four-year term or not. Do you have a sense of how long Musk is in this for, and whether or not we have a sense of if he's enjoying it, this whole notion of government service and being a senior adviser to the president? Like, is this something that really appeals to him that maybe he wants to find other roles to continue to serve in this kind of public way?
Kate Conger
00:16:01
'Initially when he was debuting the idea for DOGE, he said he was going to do it for two years and be done. I have a hard time imagining him stepping away from it. He's just kind of an all-in personality, and he's clearly enjoying this a lot. You know, he's spent so much time in Washington, I think to the detriment of his companies, which are kind of suffering without his oversight.
David Chalian
00:16:26
Which, by the way, in a very lengthy pregnant pause in an interview on Fox recently, when asked about his companies, it seemed he — I read that as he completely affirms your assessment just there that it is not easy to continue to run his companies and do what he's doing in the government.
Kate Conger
00:16:43
I mean, I don't think it's easy to run five companies if that's your only job. And then you add running the government on top of that. I mean, things are going to slip through the cracks. They have to. But I think he is really enthralled with this and intoxicated by the power that it gives him. And I think it will be really hard for him to voluntarily step away from that.
David Chalian
00:17:05
Kate, thanks so much for your time. Really appreciate it.
Kate Conger
00:17:08
Thank you. This was really great.
David Chalian
00:17:11
That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. Remember, you can reach out to us with your questions about Trump's new administration. Our contact information is in the show notes. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Our senior producer is Felicia Patinkin. Dan Dzula is our Technical Director, and Steve Lickteig is the Executive Producer of CNN audio support from Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A big fight but an early night
A big fight but an early night

Politico

time33 minutes ago

  • Politico

A big fight but an early night

Presented by Sports Betting Alliance Line? What line? In the end, the primary wasn't close. The lack of a county line for both parties for the first time since 1981 contributed to the crowded field, but it didn't change the result. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, four-term former Navy congresswoman and former Navy helicopter pilot, easily prevailed over five other Democrats for the party's nomination for governor. The AP called the race for Sherrill less than 40 minutes after polls closed. Jack Ciattarelli, a former three-term Assemblymember making his third run for governor, will for a second time be the Republican nominee, easily defeating his four Republican opponents and likely winning every county. The AP made an even quicker call for him, less than 20 minutes after polls closed. This is supposed to be a competitive election in November, but given that many of us thought the Democratic contest waa nail-biter, who really knows? Sherrill and Ciattarelli both have deep resumes and plenty of merits as candidates, so I'm not trying to discount that, but both also had the backing of most of their parties' establishments. And those machines —especially Democrats — showed that they're still formidable without the visual advantage that they bestowed on their chosen candidates for decades. Take Hudson, which Sherrill convincingly carried with the county Democrats' support despite Fulop being the long-serving mayor of its largest city. (Hudson's picture is a bit more complicated in the two non-Brian Stack Assembly districts, where nail-biter races were too close to call late last night.) Read my story about the election here. Some more observations: Steve Sweeney won his native Gloucester County, but as of last night he, Mikie Sherrill and Sean Spiller were virtually tied in Camden County. You could tell it was over for Sweeney as soon as polls closed, when Camden County's mail-in ballots showed Sherrill, Spiller and Sweeney with almost identical totals. This suggests, to me at least, that that the Camden County Democratic machine was more concerned with shoring up its Assembly candidates against Steve Fulop-backed primary challenges than putting a lot of effort into Sweeney's long-shot campaign. Deep-red Ocean County was supposed to be Bill Spadea's base. It's prime listening area for his radio show and county GOP Chair George Gilmore not only backed Spadea but was on the payroll of one of his super PACs. Yet Ciattarelli won Ocean County easily, and by pretty much the same margin he won Monmouth County, where the GOP establishment was behind him. My guess is the unusual Vaad endorsement for Ciattarelli played a significant role in this. But the Vaad, which endorsed Josh Gottheimer in the Democratic primary, didn't overcome Mikie Sherrill there. She won it easily. With 95 percent of the vote counted, Gottheimer was in third place in Ocean. I'll have to wait to see more detailed numbers from Montclair, the hometown of NJEA President and Democratic candidate Sean Spiller. But the early results I saw last night were terrible for Spiller, whose tumultuous four years as mayor (he decided not to seek reelection) doesn't appear to have endeared him to the town's voters. Early numbers showed him competing with Sweeney for last place in many, perhaps most, of the town's voting districts. The NJEA put at least $40 million into backing Spiller, and, last I checked, he was in fifth place statewide. Is Monmouth County regretting its decision to close down its polling institute? Pollster Patrick Murray's poll last month held up well. And this one's not exactly a shocker, but openly criticizing President Trump isn't a winning message in a Republican primary. State Sen. Jon Bramnick came in a distant third place. Over the course of the campaign I heard several people praise Bramnick for having the guts to go against the president, but everyone saw this coming. FEEDBACK? Reach me at mfriedman@ WHERE'S MURPHY — In Jersey City at 11 a.m. for a World Cup announcement QUOTE OF THE DAY #1: 'If this campaign were a drinking game and you took a shot every time Mikie Sherrill says 'Trump,' you're going to be drunk off your ass every day between now and November 4th.' — Jack Ciattarelli QUOTE OF THE DAY #2: 'A Trump lackey like Jack Ciattarelli … I'm ready to shake up the status quo and Jack is the status quo. He's not change, he's a re-run. He's a ghost of elections past.' — Mikie Sherrill HAPPY BIRTHDAY — Steve Sweeney, Mary Melfi, Marshall Spevak, Steven Goldstein, Joey Novick, Matt Mowers WHAT TRENTON MADE BLET'S MAKE A DEAL! — The union of engineers whose strike idled NJ Transit trains in May voted to ratify a deal that will raise wages to 'over $50 per hour,' the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen said Tuesday. The union said its members had overwhelmingly voted to approve the seven-year deal, which replaces one that expired before the pandemic. 'This agreement gives us the pay raises we needed, but also was done without a major hit to NJT's budget and should not require a fare hike for passengers,' union leader Tom Haas said in a statement. The head of NJ Transit, CEO Kris Kolluri, said in a statement he was pleased by the vote. The union's rank and file had previously voted down another deal, teeing up the strike that resulted in this agreement. — Ry Rivard THE ODDS WERE STACKED — 'Team Stack beats Team Sacco in LD33 proxy war,' by New Jersey Globe's Joey Fox: 'Neither State Sen./Union City Mayor Brian Stack and North Bergen Mayor Nicholas Sacco will appear on voters' ballots this year, but they were engaged in an all-out war against one another all the same in the 33rd legislative district – and Stack has emerged victorious. In the Democratic primary for the district's two Assembly seats, Stack's running mates, Assemblyman Gabe Rodriguez (D-West New York) and frequent North Bergen mayoral candidate Larry Wainstein, have defeated Sacco's slate of former North Bergen school board member Tony Hector and former Union City Republican chairman Frank Alonso. … As of 8:40 p.m., with only early votes reporting, Rodriguez and Wainstein lead by a combined 78%-22% margin' WHAT THEY DO IN THE SHADOWS — 'Who knows what lawmakers will do in fog of NJ budget,' by NJ Spotlight News' John Reitmeyer: 'In New Jersey once again, it remains unclear when exactly legislative leaders are planning to formally introduce and pass a spending bill for the fiscal year that begins July 1. That uncertainty was on display at the start of Monday's Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee meeting. Chair Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) discussed a potential schedule for adopting New Jersey's yet-to-be-introduced fiscal year 2026 spending bill later this month, but he stopped short of committing to any specific dates. … But still to come is the introduction of the actual bill that will become the state's next annual budget. This legislative version is likely to include hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending that, in time-worn tradition, lawmakers would tack onto a final draft of the proposed budget Murphy released nearly four weeks ago. Up to this point in the process, all the major events on the calendar, including Murphy's budget message and individual legislative hearings with executive branch department heads, have been held in public in Trenton.' —'Op-Ed: Proposed tax changes could threaten patients' access to care' —'Legislator wants assistant attorney general who runs elections fired' —'Morales, venezia win closer-than-expected race against Claybrooks in LD34' TRUMP ERA MCICTMENT — New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver indicted following ICE protest, by POLITICO's Ry Rivard: A grand jury indicted Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) on a trio of charges, acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba said Tuesday. The indictment continues the Trump administration's legal attacks against opponents of its immigration policies. And it comes as the administration has sent troops into Los Angeles over immigration protests. The indictment is a required step for prosecutors to keep pressing felony charges announced last month following a scuffle outside an immigration detention facility in Newark involving McIver, two other Democratic members of the New Jersey congressional delegation, the city's mayor and a group of federal law enforcement agents. The three counts, which allege McIver forcibly interfered with law enforcement officials, come with a maximum sentence of 17 years in prison. 'As I have stated in the past, it is my Constitutional obligation as the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer for New Jersey to ensure that our federal partners are protected when executing their duties,' Habba said in a social media post. —'Trump's DOJ indicted a Democratic Congresswoman. The case could fall apart,' by POLITICO's Ankush Khardori: 'The indictment of Rep. LaMonica McIver on Tuesday marks the latest dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's effort to quell public and political opposition to the president's crackdown on illegal immigration. It's also likely to be a dud. The decision to proceed with an indictment following the initial charges against the New Jersey Democrat comes at a politically volatile moment — following President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and the Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles, and in the midst of ongoing wrangling over the scope and legality of the administration's deportation effort. In recent weeks, that effort has generated heartrending images from courthouse arrests and more admissions of mistaken deportations from the Justice Department. Meanwhile, the administration is moving to deport hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally under the last administration. The Justice Department's prosecution of McIver — stemming from a scuffle with Homeland Security agents in Newark last month — cannot be disentangled from this context. And that may ultimately prove to be the undoing of the case.' —'McIver, fellow Delaney Hall dems come to sanctuary cities' defense in letter to Trump admin' —'As Trump moves to cut LGBTQ suicide prevention line, NJ counselors see spike in calls' —'[Sandy Hook] beach may not have enough lifeguards after Trump cuts, [Pallone] says' LOCAL R.I.P. — 'Brian Hughes, five-term Mercer County Executive, dies at 68,' by New Jersey Globe's David Wildstein: 'Brian Hughes, who served as the Mercer County Executive from 2004 to 2024, died this morning. He was 68. The son of Richard J. Hughes, who served as governor of New Jersey from 1962 to 1970 and chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court from 1973 to 1979, Hughes was the Democratic candidate for Congress against Rep. Christopher Smith (R-Manchester) in 1992 and was elected Mercer County freeholder in 1997 and 2000. Hughes ended 24 years of Republican control of the Mercer County Executive's office in 2003 when he defeated County Clerk Cathy DiCostanzo by 1,673 votes, 49%-47%.' I SHOCKED THE SHERIFF — 'Davis declares victory over Schillari in primary for Hudson County sheriff,' by Hudson County View's John Heinis: 'Bayonne Mayor Jimmy Davis has declared victory over Hudson County Sheriff Frank Schillari, who was seeking a sixth term, marking a big win for the county Democrats … Schillari, who ran on Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop's 'Democrats for Change' gubernatorial slate, hit Davis repeatedly over workplace lawsuits alleging sexual harassment. Davis, who ran on the Hudson County Democratic Organization (HCDO) slate, returned fire by alleging excessive overtime spending in the sheriff's office and saying five terms is enough.' VELEZCALATION — 'Paterson mayor and councilman feud intensifies. Preview of mayoral race?' by The Paterson Press' Joe Malinconico: 'The conflict between Mayor Andre Sayegh and Councilman Luis Velez escalated over the weekend after television news on June 6 reported allegations that Velez pulled a City Hall fire alarm last year. Velez said he believes Sayegh leaked 'false information' about the fire alarm to NBC News. 'My friend, you need to try harder to put me down,' Velez told Sayegh in a text message sent less than an hour after the story aired. 'Like always playing dirty politics,' the councilman added. Sayegh responded that same night with a text asking Velez to stop texting him, 'especially while you are under investigation by multiple law enforcement entities.' … The growing feud between onetime allies in some ways represents a preview of Paterson's mayoral election next May. Velez has said he plans to challenge Sayegh. But political insiders say it's highly unlikely that the contest will be a two-man battle. City Council members Michael Jackson and Alex Mendez — both of whom have been facing state election fraud charges for the past five years — have indicated interest in running for mayor.' RODRICK VS. EVERYBODY — 'Toms River PBA says mayor is not telling the truth about police staffing,' by the Asbury Park Press' Jean Mikle: 'The Toms River PBA has accused Mayor Daniel Rodrick of making false claims about police department staffing, which the organization notes has fallen to the lowest level in 21 years. The unusual statement issued June 7 by Toms River PBA Local 137 came in response to a letter sent by the mayor to township residents, in which Rodrick said he had increased the number of police on the road by 20%, 'and we're in the process of hiring even more officers.' PBA President Kenneth Thomas took issue with the mayor's statements about police staffing, writing 'this claim of a 20% increase in 'cops on the road' is completely false.' As of June 6, Thomas said, Toms River's overall police workforce is 151 officers, down from 163 in January 2024. Thomas said that pending retirements are expected to drop the roster to 146 officers by Septembe.r … The mayor argues that a change in working hours from three, 11-hour shifts to 4, 10-hour shits a week for officers has actually placed more police on township streets every day … 'They are so angry because they don't get hardly any overtime anymore,' the mayor said of the officers' new schedule.' —'Political operative Craig Callaway's sentencing in 2022 election ballot fraud case delayed' —'Small declares victory in Atlantic City Democratic mayoral race' —'Lawsuit claiming retaliation for anonymous emails criticizing N.J. school district tossed' —'What should Camden's next superintendent do? Residents want someone to manage crises and the budget' —'Islamic congregation considers next step after Sayreville rejects mosque proposal' —'Stranded dolphin on coast of Jersey Shore town euthanized after rescue attempt' —'Sources: Bergen executive Tedesco to run for reelection' R.I.P. — 'Family mourning loss of Camden star football player killed in shooting' EVERYTHING ELSE MR. BIN WIZARDEN — 'Teen's explosives in basement were used as part of 'science project,' cops say,' by NJ Advance Medai's Jeff Goldman: 'A Moorestown teenager who had explosives materials in a lab in his basement and brought them to a friend's house to use in a school project had no malicious intentions, authorities said. 'It was a science project that they were doing,' Moorestown police director Patrick Reilly said at a press conference on Monday.'' —'Computer, enhance!: Atlantic City police recover Heart's stolen instrument using license plate reader technology, surveillance footage'

What to look for in Zeldin's power plant rule repeal
What to look for in Zeldin's power plant rule repeal

E&E News

time38 minutes ago

  • E&E News

What to look for in Zeldin's power plant rule repeal

EPA will move Wednesday to repeal Biden-era power sector rules for carbon and hazardous emissions. The two repeal proposals are the Trump EPA's most important regulatory actions to date. They will not only set the stage for rolling back key Clean Air Act rules, but also provide a glimpse of the Trump administration's broader anti-climate and anti-regulatory strategy. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin will unveil the proposals at the agency's Washington headquarters Wednesday afternoon during an event attended by several Republican lawmakers. Advertisement The proposals target two regulations central to the Biden administration's climate agenda: one that sets carbon pollution limits at fossil fuel power plants, and another that ramps up controls on harmful pollution like mercury. It's unclear whether the agency will release the full draft regulations and regulatory documents Wednesday — or wait until the drafts are published in the Federal Register. But here's what to know and watch in the days ahead. The basics EPA has said it plans to repeal both the carbon and mercury rules by the end of this year, and the proposals cleared White House review Friday. The draft climate rule repeal would jettison standards for new gas- and existing coal-fired power that were based on carbon capture and storage. EPA is not expected to immediately propose a replacement rule, but hasn't ruled out doing so in the future. The two proposals traveled to the White House for review in near-record time — just over 100 days after President Donald Trump's inauguration. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review in a mere 35 days, or about half the time usually allotted for review of complex EPA rulemakings. The Trump administration has been tight-lipped about its strategy for doing away with the power plant carbon rule. EPA did not respond to calls for comment on this story. Possible legal arguments The agency will need to use the draft repeal to lay out its legal case for abandoning the 2024 carbon rule. That case could be twofold — a more conventional attack on the Biden administration's reliance on carbon capture as a benchmark technology, and a broader contention that power plant carbon shouldn't be regulated at all. Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration, said in a recent interview that EPA would be on firm legal ground to argue that carbon capture and storage doesn't align with the Clean Air Act's directive to base performance standards on controls that are 'adequately demonstrated.' 'I think that was a big stretch, and I don't think it would have been upheld in court,' he said. But EPA has signaled it plans to use the repeal to take a broader swipe at its own authority to regulate carbon — or at least carbon from power plants. To do that, it appears poised to argue that the U.S. power sector doesn't contribute 'significantly' to pollution and thus doesn't meet the Clean Air Act threshold for regulatory action. It's a gambit that, if successful, could make it harder for subsequent administrations to regulate power plant carbon. But lawyers say EPA has an uphill battle. Power is the country's second-highest-emitting sector after transportation. EPA argued during the first Trump administration that the power sector meets the Clean Air Act threshold. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in West Virginia vs. EPA — the same case that struck down the Obama-era Clean Power Plan — that power sector emissions were significant enough to merit regulation. 'The U.S. power sector, if it were a country, would be the sixth-biggest country emitter in the world,' said Jason Schwartz, legal director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. 'By any reasonable interpretation of the legal language, this is clearly a significant contribution. If this isn't, then nothing is and what's the point of the Clean Air Act in the first place?' Schwartz and his colleague Peter Howard recently released an analysis that estimated that a year of U.S. power sector emissions causes $370 billion in global damages and $56 billion in U.S. public health impacts, as well as contributes to 5,300 future U.S. deaths. Cost-benefit analysis One question that may be answered Wednesday is how EPA will weigh the costs and benefits of rolling back the rule. That will only be answered when — or if — the agency releases supporting documents for the repeal proposal. The breakneck pace of EPA's regulatory rollback means that the agency likely hasn't had time to construct an analytical framework on things like the health and mortality consequences of increased smog and soot stemming from the repeals, or changes it expects to see in power sector investments. That means the agency will either have to rely on outdated metrics from the first Trump administration or on the Biden-era projections it claims vastly inflate regulatory benefits and obscure costs. 'I have no idea what we're going to see tomorrow,' said Julie McNamara, associate policy director for climate at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a Tuesday interview. 'The power sector is in total flux. Will they be including increased demand from data centers? Will they be including increased costs of gas from all the ramp up of [liquefied natural gas] and gas generation? What do they assume for coal would have happened under the Biden-era regulations? 'That could be very telling for the narrative they tried to set around the future of this nation's power sector,' she said. 'It is quite unlikely to line up with reality.' Numerous experts outside the federal government have analyzed the effect of the Biden carbon rules on both the grid and emissions — and the possible impact of removing them. John Bistline, an energy systems analyst with Electric Power Research Institute, published a model-based study in the journal Science earlier this year. It found that the power plant carbon rule would make a significant dent in power sector emissions in later decades with or without increased power demand, and would reduce uncertainty around how much coal-fired power remained on the grid. The climate question One open question is how — or whether — EPA will try to monetize damages from climate change. The Trump White House has told agencies to avoid using a metric for the social cost of greenhouse gases that reflects climate damage stemming from agency policies. But with a regulatory action that hinges so directly on carbon emissions, experts said EPA could find it hard to defend the rollback if it hasn't shown it has grappled with the climate impacts of its decision to rescind the rule. 'If they didn't do any analysis, what is their explanation?' said Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She noted that the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to provide a reasoned explanation for changes to existing policy. 'It all goes back to just classic administrative law,' Hankins said. 'Are they explaining why they've changed their mind since the Biden administration? Are they using the best available science? Are they adequately considering all aspects of the problem?' Schwartz said EPA might not release any regulatory analysis at all, if it believes it can repeal the Biden rule based solely on a legal argument that power plant carbon shouldn't be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But he said that could increase the chances that the rule would be thrown out in court. 'I think that would be a mistake,' he said. This story also appears in Energywire.

Trump-Musk fight reveals fragility of relationship between Silicon Valley and White House
Trump-Musk fight reveals fragility of relationship between Silicon Valley and White House

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump-Musk fight reveals fragility of relationship between Silicon Valley and White House

The falling out between President Trump and Elon Musk is just the latest reminder that the relationship between the new White House and the titans of technology has turned out to be complicated. The CEO of Tesla (TSLA) was among several big names from Silicon Valley awarded prime seats for the president's Jan. 20 Capitol inauguration, alongside Meta (META) CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook, Amazon (AMZN) chair Jeff Bezos, and Google (GOOG) CEO Sundar Pichai. In the five months since, the president has either confronted all of their companies in court or applied pressure on those firms with his own words. Musk and Trump made their break official last week in a series of social media posts that featured insults and threats hurled by both men. The other executives and their companies had already been grappling with a tougher-than-expected stance on their industry. Zuckerberg, for example, was not able to convince Trump to stop an antitrust trial against Meta from going forward this spring. The president has since threatened Cook's Apple with 25% duties on overseas-made iPhones and criticized the iPhone maker's ramped-up production in India. Meanwhile, the company is defending against an antitrust lawsuit led by the Justice Department, filed during President Joe Biden's administration. Trump's Justice Department has also pushed ahead with a Biden-era recommendation for a judge to break up Pichai's Google empire. Trump even called Bezos to complain about Amazon after it was reported that the online retail giant was considering displaying the cost of tariffs next to prices on its site. Trump said Bezos "solved the problem very quickly.' Yet Amazon still faces a lawsuit from Trump's Federal Trade Commission that is due to start in February 2027. The FTC, which brought the case during Biden's term in office, told a judge in the spring that it needed to push the original October 2026 trial date due to Amazon's litigation delays. One of the biggest questions facing the tech world as Trump took office was how aggressive Trump's antitrust enforcers would be following four years of a Biden administration marked by legal fights with many of Silicon Valley's biggest names. By sustaining many of these cases and probes against Big Tech, Trump has parted ways with traditional Republican-style enforcement, legal experts say. "This isn't the Bush administration," Trump's FTC chair Andrew Ferguson told a group of American CEOs this spring in Washington, D.C., referring to one of the weakest US antitrust enforcement periods in modern history. Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Anat Alon-Beck expects the Trump administration will continue to rein in Big Tech, especially given bipartisan support for the idea that Big Tech currently has too much power. There have been some positive developments for the tech firms too. Big Tech has gained the benefit of a relaxed regulatory environment, especially in the industry of artificial intelligence, making fundraising and complying with securities laws easier. In an executive order titled 'Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,' the president rescinded Biden's executive order on AI safety and directed federal agencies to remove regulatory obstacles to US global AI dominance. "So they have to take what they can get from the current administration," Alon-Beck said. One tech giant that does have an early win from Trump is Microsoft. President Trump's antitrust cops ended what had become an uphill government effort to unwind Microsoft's (MSFT) $69 billion acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard that also began during the Biden administration. The decision came when the FTC voluntarily dropped a lawsuit that Biden's FTC boss, Lina Khan, first filed against the tie-up in December 2022. But Microsoft may not emerge unscathed, either. Bloomberg has reported that Trump officials at the FTC are also broadening a probe into Microsoft and its relationship with AI upstart OpenAI ( The probe was first launched by Khan, a key architect of a new movement seeking to expand the legal theories that can give rise to antitrust claims. In June of last year, multiple news organizations reported that the probe also involved a DOJ investigation into chipmaker Nvidia's (NVDA) competitive conduct. The probe was to address concerns over the company's dominance in the market for microprocessors that power AI. The Trump administration has not indicated it has dropped the investigation. And in April, Nvidia said in a regulatory filing that the president had kept in place Biden's export restrictions on the company's H20 AI chips to China. As for Musk, Trump this past weekend said he had no desire to repair the relationship, which he said was over. He warned there would be 'serious consequences' if Musk financed candidates to run against Republicans who voted in favor of the president's domestic policy bill. But on Monday, Trump made some conciliatory comments about Musk and Tesla. "I'd have no problem with it," Trump said at a White House event on Monday when asked if he would be willing to speak with Musk. "I'd imagine he wants to speak with me." He added, "I wish him well, very well actually." The Tesla CEO has also conceded that he regrets some of his social media posts about Trump, saying on Wednesday that they "went too far". Wedbush technology analyst Dan Ives wrote in a note on Monday that he doesn't expect Trump and Musk to fully patch their soured relationship but would not be surprised if it improved in the months ahead. At the end of the day, Ives wrote, "Trump needs Musk to stay close to the Republican party and Musk needs Trump for many reasons," including a federal framework for autonomous vehicles. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store