Latest news with #MAGA-dominated
Axios
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Axios
The MAGA assimilation test: Why Rubio passed and Graham failed
Want to figure out how to win over MAGA? Take two former Senate colleagues as an instructive case study. Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) recent trip to Ukraine infuriated MAGA, which has placed a target on his back despite his close friendship with President Trump. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hails from similarly hawkish roots. But he's moved squarely into the camp of MAGA favorites. Why it matters: Understanding why Graham is still seen as an outsider — and how Rubio made it inside the tent — offers a roadmap for Republicans trying to thrive in a MAGA-dominated GOP. Trump may have run his last race, but MAGA is here to stay — and few Republicans have spotless records when it comes to commentary on Trump or his ideology. Behind the scenes: Conversations with sources in MAGA media and the movement at large reveal a consistent perception of the two senior Republican figures. After Trump locked up the presidential nomination in 2016, both Graham and Rubio benefited from efforts to develop personal relationships with the new GOP king-maker. But Graham never shook his neoconservative instincts — especially on foreign policy — and MAGA noticed. Rubio, by contrast, listened, adapted, and sold himself as a convert. "Rubio clearly thought about this stuff, formulated a plan to address it and then communicated that plan," said one senior right-wing media figure. "Graham just went about business as usual in Washington." Flashback: In Trump's first term, Graham took massive heat from liberals for cozying up to the man who had humiliated him in 2016, trashed his close friend John McCain, and threw out decades of foreign policy that drove Graham's raison d'etre in Washington. Zoom in: Throughout it all, Graham never fully embraced Trumpism. He bonded with Trump personally, not philosophically. In 2017, Graham advocated for Congress to grant a pathway to citizenship for undocumented "Dreamers" brought to the U.S. as children in exchange for border security measures. Earlier this year, Graham pushed for U.S.-backed Israeli military strikes on Iran to destroy its nuclear program. Then in late May, he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — flashing a thumbs up with a leader so reviled in MAGA circles that conspiracy theories of Nazism and cocaine use are commonplace online. What they're saying: "Lindsey Graham may actually represent one of the last times that a senator could actually be so flagrantly flippant about public perception on the right," The National Pulse's Raheem Kassam told Axios. "I think the trend is towards, not against, populism. And somebody like Graham really is a dinosaur now." Between the lines: Rubio took a different tack — gradually aligning himself with MAGA positions over time. After Trump's election in 2016, Rubio — a longtime immigration reformer in the Senate — was an early supporter of the border wall. In early 2024, despite his record of hostility toward Russia as an influential member of the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, Rubio voted against another foreign aid package to Ukraine. And after voting to certify the 2020 election results, he refused to commit to doing the same in 2024. The intrigue: Rubio's evolution has played out in full public view. The former senator honed his MAGA fluency as a fixture on both cable news and Trump-aligned platform like Steve Bannon's "War Room." As a top Trump official, he's become adept at picking the right enemies nd fights — from China to pro-Palestinian green-card holders to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), with whom he had a viral showdown last month. "There's this sense that Rubio's just come of age, and he's comfortable in his own skin," a second senior MAGA media figure said. "The version of Rubio that that was out of step with the base was much younger, had not paid his dues nearly as much. And he's just come around." Yes, but: That doesn't mean Graham is reviled or irrelevant. He's still close to Trump and constantly heaps praise the president — a relationship that earns him some forgiveness. "Sen. Graham has supported President Trump from the beginning and has been a loyal ally in the Senate fighting for the America First agenda," said Alex Latcham, the head of Senate Republicans' super PAC and a Trump campaign alum. "President Trump and Sen. Graham remain united in their commitment to keeping Americans safe and prosperous, and anyone who suggests otherwise is attempting to advance a false reality."
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's official role at Trump's DOGE ends, but his political impact lingers ahead of midterms
As Elon Musk, the world's richest person, put it, his role in steering President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has come "to an end." However, the president, in a social media post on Thursday night announcing that he and Musk would team up for a 1:30 p.m. ET White House news conference on Friday, teased that Musk would continue to help the Trump administration. "This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way. Elon is terrific!" he wrote. Musk's political impact on national politics and on next year's midterm elections — for better or for worse — is far from over and is likely to live on well past his official departure from the Trump administration. What's Next For Doge After Elon Musk's Departure Trump, after winning back the White House in last November's election, created DOGE with marching orders to overhaul and downsize the federal government. Trump named Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX and Trump's biggest political donor in the 2024 election, to steer the organization. Read On The Fox News App "Elon Musk made the most serious attempt at reducing the size and scope of government in modern political history. It was at times chaotic but impactful," veteran GOP strategist Ryan Williams told Fox News. Williams predicted that Musk's "efforts will continue to linger as a political football, but also a guide for Republicans if they're serious about limiting the growth of the federal government." After returning to the White House in January, Musk and DOGE quickly swept through federal agencies, rooting out what the new administration argued was billions in wasteful federal spending. Additionally, they took a meat cleaver to the federal workforce, resulting in a massive downsizing of employees. Nothing symbolized Musk's controversial moves more than his brandishing of a chainsaw during a February appearance at the MAGA-dominated Conservative Political Action Conference, where he touted "how easy" it was to "save billions of dollars sometimes in… an hour." The moves by DOGE grabbed tons of national attention and triggered a slew of lawsuits in response. Many of DOGE's cuts in government staffing were stymied or reversed by federal court orders. While DOGE was originally tasked with slashing $2 trillion from the federal government's budget, the DOGE website earlier this week said that its efforts to date had led to roughly $175 billion in savings due to asset sales, contract cancellations, fraud payment cuts, in addition to other steps to eliminate costs. Musk Criticism Of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Frustrates Some Republicans Musk's arrival in the nation's capital came with a bang. Thanks to a direct pipeline to the president and his powerful mouthpiece on the social media site X, Musk instantly and repeatedly made headlines with his provocative moves and the targeting of people he did not like, often to the chagrin of Trump administration officials and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Trump repeatedly praised Musk and DOGE's efforts. "The vast majority of people in this country really respect and appreciate you, and this whole room can say that very strongly; you have really been a tremendous help," the president said during a Cabinet meeting four weeks ago, when Musk announced that he would be cutting back on his time spent with DOGE and the Trump administration. However, behind the scenes, there was a lot less harmony. "People got really sick of him really quickly," a veteran Republican strategist with ties to the administration and Capitol Hill who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely told Fox News. "He was fun to begin with," the strategist noted, before adding that "people inside and around the administration and people outside" were tired of Musk "by the end, when he's sitting in a meeting wearing multiple hats on his head." Additionally, Musk's recent criticism of Trump's sweeping "big beautiful bill," which passed a major congressional hurdle, did not help matters. While a slew of public opinion polls, including national surveys from Fox News, indicated that Americans like the idea of downsizing the federal government, those same surveys highlighted that the public was far from thrilled with how Musk and DOGE carried out cuts to the federal bureaucracy. White House Reveals Next Steps For Doge After Musk Departure Musk, who spent nearly $300 million in support of Trump's 2024 White House victory, quickly became a lightning rod in the handful of off-year and special elections held early this year. Through aligned political groups, Musk dished out roughly $20 million in battleground Wisconsin's high-profile state Supreme Court race, in support of Trump-backed judge Brad Schimel, the conservative-leaning candidate in the election. Musk, in a controversial move, handed out $1 million checks at a rally in Green Bay two nights ahead of the election to two Wisconsin voters who had already cast ballots in the contest and had signed a petition to stop "activist judges." Musk, at the rally, donned a cheesehead hat — a foam wedge which resembles a chunk of cheese — that is traditionally worn by devout Green Bay Packers football fans in Wisconsin and across the country. However, Schimel ended up losing by 10 points to the Democratic-aligned candidate in what was supposed to be a close contest. Musk ended up getting tagged with plenty of blame in a race that partially turned into a referendum on his efforts at DOGE. Top Five Wildest Moments Of Musk's Doge Tenure Democrats repeatedly made Musk the bogeyman in their messaging in Wisconsin's election and in other contests, and they pledged to continue to target him heading into next year's midterm elections, when Republicans will be defending their razor-thin House majority and their modest Senate majority. "Top of mind for voters are the pocketbook issues. Democrats are going to win by highlighting the fact that Republicans are failing at lowering costs because they are too busy pushing tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations, while making the rest of us pay for them," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee national press secretary Viet Shelton told Fox News. Shelton emphasized that "Elon is, and forever will be, an instantly-recognizable manifestation of the fact that House Republicans don't work for the American people, they work for the billionaires." So, were Musk's potential political risks to Republicans behind his departure from the nation's capitol? A GOP strategist close to GOP lawmakers, when asked if Musk's welcome was wearing out among congressional Republicans, said "yes to a point." "But I think the larger question about whether Musk and DOGE are liabilities in the midterms, I would say emphatically no," added the strategist, who asked for anonymity to speak more freely. The strategist noted that GOP lawmakers "who have talked about waste, fraud, and abuse, and have talked about the savings generated by DOGE, they've done quite well. It's the folks who don't want to message on it and have not put Democrats on defense, who are tired of Musk." Additionally, veteran Republican strategist Matt Gorman disagrees with the Democrats' argument about Musk's lasting impact on the campaign trail. "I don't think that in any way Elon Musk will be a factor one way or another in the year-plus that we have until Election Day 2026," Gorman, a veteran of numerous presidential and statewide campaigns, told Fox article source: Elon Musk's official role at Trump's DOGE ends, but his political impact lingers ahead of midterms
NZ Herald
24-04-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Anti-trans posts pass muster under Meta's new hate-speech rules
Both posts came to the Oversight Board's attention after being reshared by conservative activist Chaya Raichik, who operates several controversial social media accounts known as Libs of TikTok, according to four people familiar with the matter. Raichik's social media accounts have become a fixture in American politics, and she has amassed an audience of millions while routinely attacking the cultural acceptance of trans people. Libs of TikTok has been blamed for sparking threats at hospitals and encouraging restrictions on LGBTQ+ -related content in schools. Raichik said the allegations about hospitals are false. The Oversight Board's ruling is the first major test of Meta's latest efforts to rebrand itself for a MAGA-dominated Washington. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg pledged in January to take the company back to its roots by 'restoring free expression' after years of what he said were too many restrictions on speech. That same month, Meta weakened its hate-speech rules, offering users greater freedom to call for gender-based restrictions in bathrooms, sports and specific schools, and to characterise gay people as mentally ill. The Oversight Board as a whole said the posts didn't violate Meta's new or old hate-speech rules because they did not directly attack people based on their gender identity. A minority on the board argued that the posts would have violated Meta's old hate-speech rules before the changes in January. The board on Wednesday also issued a broader critique of Meta's latest policy changes, including calling on the social media giant to improve how it enforces violations of its bullying and harassment rules. The Oversight Board planned to release the gender identity case ruling, among several others, next week but moved up the announcement to Wednesday after a Washington Post reporter requested comment this week on the pending ruling. Ayobami Olugbemiga, a spokesperson for the Oversight Board, said the group would offer a comment for this report by the end of Tuesday (local time) but did not. Meta spokesman Corey Chambliss said in a statement on Wednesday the company appreciates 'the work of the Oversight Board' and welcomes its decisions. Clegg didn't respond to a request for comment. Even before Wednesday's ruling, the board's judgment on the gender identity cases had become a lightning rod among social media policy watchers, attracting scores of comments about how the group should rule, including from LGTBQ+ advocacy groups and conservative critics. The ruling could also affect how other internet platforms draw the line about what is considered acceptable speech amid a fierce global debate about the rights of trans people. 'This ruling tells LGBTQ people all we need to know about Meta's attitude towards its LGBTQ users - anti-LGBTQ hate, and especially anti-trans hate is welcome on Meta's platforms,' Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the LGBTQ+ activist group GLAAD, said in a statement. 'This is not 'free speech,' this is harassment that dehumanises a vulnerable group of people.' Critics argue that leaving the content up could open the door to more harmful rhetoric about trans people, at a time when the LGBTQ+ community is facing rising harassment and legislative efforts to limit trans people's ability to use bathrooms or compete in sports competitions in accordance with their gender identity. Meanwhile, conservative free-speech advocates argue that people should be allowed to criticise the rights of trans people - a position that polls show is gaining popularity among the general public in the United States. 'This isn't hate speech,' said Beth Parlato, a senior legal adviser for Independent Women's Law Centre, a conservative group that advocates for restrictions on trans people's participation in sports and their presence in bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. 'More than half of the country believes there are two sexes - male and female - and we should not be quieted or censored from discussing any issues that involve transgenders,' she added. The Oversight Board is undergoing its own reinvention, five years after it launched as an experimental way for Meta to offload contentious content-moderation decisions to an independent party. Critics of the board, both inside and outside the company, have alleged that it has moved too slowly to issue decisions, failed to substantially change the company's approach to moderation, and operated at too hefty a price tag. Some have also characterised the Oversight Board as too liberal, applying pressure that incentivised the group to take up the gender identity cases in the first place, one of the people said. The 21-member Oversight Board, which is funded by the tech company but operates independently, includes a global roster of well-known public figures in media, politics, civil society and academia. Its members include former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, University of Notre Dame professor Paolo Carozza, Prospect magazine editor Alan Rusbridger, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Tawakkol Karman and Cato Institute Vice President John Samples. The Oversight Board reviewed a Facebook post that shared a video in which a woman films herself confronting a transgender woman for using the women's bathroom, according to the board's description of the case. The woman asked the trans woman why she was using the women's bathroom. The board is also reviewing an Instagram post sharing a video of a transgender girl winning a sports competition in the United States, with some spectators expressing disapproval of the result. The post refers to the trans athlete as a boy, according to the board. Both posts, which were shared last year, were reported by users as violating the company's hate speech and bullying and harassment policies. But Meta left the posts up, determining that the videos or posts didn't specifically call for the exclusion of trans people, according to one of the people and a description of the case from the Oversight Board. At least two of the users who originally reported the content appealed that decision to the board. Meta's old hate-speech or anti-harassment rules banned users from calling for the political, social or economic exclusion of people based on characteristics such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. Meta's new rules give users the freedom to say certain jobs, such as the military or teaching, should be limited by gender. Social media posters are also free under the new rules to say they support denying access to certain spaces on the basis of gender. Meta's rules never blocked users from 'misgendering' people, by using someone's non-preferred pronouns. Meta initially told the Oversight Board that the posts didn't break the rules but that even if they did, they would be considered exempt under the company's newsworthiness allowance. Later, Meta reviewed its new hate-speech rules with the Oversight Board, whose members took them into consideration for its ruling, two of the people said. Since the board took up the cases in August, activists on both sides of the issue have weighed in. GLAAD argued that the posts should be considered a violation of the company's hate-speech rules because misgendering someone is equivalent to 'denying [the] existence' of people based on a sensitive characteristic. By contrast, the Independent Women's Forum argued that allowing the contested videos to be posted is a crucial tool for women to be able to advocate against having trans women, whom they call men, use women-only spaces. For now, Meta is siding with the latter. Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan in January that one reason the company changed its rules is because then-defence secretary nominee Pete Hegseth's previous criticism of policies allowing women in combat would probably be debated in his confirmation hearing. 'If it's okay to say on the floor of Congress, you should probably be able to debate it on social media,' Zuckerberg said.
Boston Globe
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Videos disparaging trans women aren't hate speech, Meta board says
The Oversight Board sided with Meta early Wednesday and ruled that the two posts about trans people didn't violate the company's hate-speech rules. The board's decisions on specific cases are considered binding. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ruling focuses on disparaging comments accompanying two videos, one showing a trans woman using a woman's bathroom and another showing a trans girl winning a female sports competition. The videos and posts responding to them circulated on social media last year. In both cases, Meta determined that while posts about the videos questioned a trans person's gender identity, they didn't violate its rules against hate speech or harassment. Advertisement Both posts came to the Oversight Board's attention after being reshared by conservative activist Chaya Raichik, who operates several controversial social media accounts known as Libs of TikTok, according to four people familiar with the matter. Raichik's social media accounts have become a fixture in American politics, and she has amassed an audience of millions while routinely attacking the cultural acceptance of trans people. Libs of TikTok has been blamed for sparking threats at hospitals and encouraging restrictions on LGBTQ+ -related content in schools. Raichik said the allegations about hospitals are false. Related : Advertisement The Oversight Board's ruling is the first major test of Meta's latest efforts to rebrand itself for a MAGA-dominated Washington. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg pledged in January to take the company back to its roots by 'restoring free expression' after years of what he said were too many restrictions on speech. That same month, Meta weakened its hate-speech rules, offering users greater freedom to call for gender-based restrictions in bathrooms, sports and specific schools, and to characterize gay people as mentally ill. The Oversight Board as a whole said the posts didn't violate Meta's new or old hate-speech rules because they did not directly attack people based on their gender identity. A minority on the board argued that the posts would have violated Meta's old hate-speech rules The board on Wednesday also issued a broader critique of Meta's latest policy changes, including calling on the social media giant to improve how it enforces violations of its bullying and harassment rules. The Oversight Board planned to release the gender identity case ruling, among several others, next week but moved up the announcement to early Wednesday after a Washington Post reporter requested comment this week on the pending ruling. Ayobami Olugbemiga, a spokesperson for the Oversight Board, said the group would offer a comment for this report by the end of the day Tuesday but did not. Advertisement Meta spokesman Corey Chambliss said in a statement Wednesday that the company appreciates 'the work of the Oversight Board' and welcomes its decisions. Clegg didn't respond to a request for comment. Even before Wednesday's ruling, the board's judgment on the gender identity cases had become a lightning rod among social media policy watchers, attracting scores of comments about how the group should rule, including from LGTBQ+ advocacy groups and conservative critics. The ruling could also affect how other internet platforms draw the line about what is considered acceptable speech amid a fierce global debate about the rights of trans people. Related : 'This ruling tells LGBTQ people all we need to know about Meta's attitude towards its LGBTQ users — anti-LGBTQ hate, and especially anti-trans hate is welcome on Meta's platforms,' Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of Critics argue that leaving the content up could open the door to more harmful rhetoric about trans people, at a time when the LGBTQ+ community is facing rising harassment and legislative efforts to limit trans people's ability to use bathrooms or compete in sports competitions in accordance with their gender identity. Meanwhile, conservative free-speech advocates argue that people should be allowed to criticize the rights of trans people — a position that polls show is gaining popularity among the general public in the United States. 'This isn't hate speech,' said Beth Parlato, a senior legal adviser for Independent Women's Law Center, a conservative group that advocates for restrictions on trans people's participation in sports and their presence in bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. Advertisement 'More than half of the country believes there are two sexes — male and female — and we should not be quieted or censored from discussing any issues that involve transgenders,' she added. The Oversight Board is undergoing its own reinvention, five years after it launched as an experimental way for Meta to off-load contentious content-moderation decisions to an independent party. Critics of the board, both inside and outside the company, have alleged that it has moved too slowly to issue decisions, failed to substantially change the company's approach to moderation, and operated at too hefty a price tag. Some have also characterized the Oversight Board as too liberal, applying pressure that incentivized the group to take up the gender identity cases in the first place, one of the people said. The 21-member Oversight Board, which is funded by the tech company but operates independently, includes a global roster of well-known public figures in media, politics, civil society and academia. Its members include former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, University of Notre Dame professor Paolo Carozza, Prospect magazine editor Alan Rusbridger, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Tawakkol Karman and Cato Institute Vice President John Samples. The Oversight Board reviewed a Facebook post that shared a video in which a woman films herself confronting a transgender woman for using the women's bathroom, according to the board's description of the case. The woman asked the trans woman why she was using the women's bathroom. The board is also reviewing an Instagram post sharing a video of a transgender girl winning a sports competition in the United States, with some spectators expressing disapproval of the result. The post refers to the trans athlete as a boy, according to the board. Related : Advertisement Both posts, which were shared last year, were reported by users as violating the company's hate speech and bullying and harassment policies. But Meta left the posts up, determining that the videos or posts didn't specifically call for the exclusion of trans people, according to one of the people and a description of the case from the Oversight Board. At least two of the users who originally reported the content appealed that decision to the board. Meta's old hate-speech or anti-harassment rules banned users from calling for the political, social or economic exclusion of people based on characteristics such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. Meta's new rules give users the freedom to say certain jobs, such as the military or teaching, should be limited by gender. Social media posters are also free under the new rules to say they support denying access to certain spaces on the basis of gender. Meta's rules never blocked users from 'misgendering' people, by using someone's non-preferred pronouns. Meta initially told the Oversight Board that the posts didn't break the rules but that even if they did, they would be considered exempt under the company's newsworthiness allowance. Later, Meta reviewed its new hate-speech rules with the Oversight Board, whose members took them into consideration for its ruling, two of the people said. Since the board took up the cases in August, activists on both sides of the issue have weighed in. GLAAD argued that the posts should be considered a violation of the company's hate-speech rules because misgendering someone is equivalent to 'denying [the] existence' of people based on a sensitive characteristic. By contrast, the Independent Women's Forum argued that allowing the contested videos to be posted is a crucial tool for women to be able to advocate against having trans women, whom they call men, use women-only spaces. Advertisement For now, Meta is siding with the latter. Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan in January that one reason the company changed its rules is because then-defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth's previous criticism of policies allowing women in combat would probably be debated in his confirmation hearing. 'If it's okay to say on the floor of Congress, you should probably be able to debate it on social media,' Zuckerberg said.
