Thursday, May 14, 2026
South Africa Packs Up Elon Musk And Musk’s Public Record Of Published Racism
The public and legal record regarding Elon Musk’s history with race-related issues is extensive, ranging from personal statements and social media interactions to significant corporate lawsuits and policy changes.
1. Public Statements and Social Media Engagement
Musk’s activity on X (formerly Twitter) has frequently drawn criticism for amplifying content associated with white nationalist and far-right ideologies:
"Great Replacement" Narrative: Musk has repeatedly endorsed the "Great Replacement" theory—a conspiracy theory suggesting that liberal elites are intentionally using immigration to replace white populations. He famously replied "The actual truth" to a post claiming Jewish communities push "dialectical hatred against whites."
Comments on "Race Science" and Demographics: In early 2026, reports highlighted that Musk posted almost daily about race, frequently claiming that white people are a "dying minority" and that "white genocide" is a political platform.
Criticism of Diversity Initiatives: Musk is a vocal opponent of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, labeling them "racist" against white and Asian people. He has argued that these programs prioritize identity over merit and has blamed them for various corporate failures.
Defense of Scott Adams: In 2023, Musk defended "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams after Adams called Black Americans a "hate group" and suggested white people should "get the hell away from Black people." Musk responded by accusing the media of being "racist against whites and Asians."
2. Corporate Policies and Workplace Culture
Musk’s companies, particularly Tesla, have faced numerous legal challenges regarding systemic racism within their facilities:
The Fremont Factory Lawsuits: Tesla has been the subject of several high-profile lawsuits alleging a "racially hostile" work environment at its Fremont, California plant.
Diaz v. Tesla: In a landmark case, a federal jury initially awarded Owen Diaz, a Black former elevator operator, $137 million (later reduced) after finding he was subjected to racial slurs, racist graffiti (including swastikas), and harassment that the company failed to stop.
California Civil Rights Department (CRD): In 2022, the state of California sued Tesla, alleging that the Fremont factory was a "segregated workplace" where Black workers were assigned the most physically demanding tasks and subjected to frequent racial slurs.
Content Moderation on X: Since acquiring Twitter, Musk has significantly reduced the platform’s trust and safety teams. Research (such as a 2025 study in *PLOS One*) has indicated a substantial increase in hate speech and the restoration of accounts belonging to known white nationalists and neo-Nazis under his leadership.
3. Political and Educational Philosophy
Musk’s views on race are often framed within his broader "anti-woke" stance:
Meritocracy vs. Equity: He argues that "color-blindness" is the only fair approach and that any policy attempting to adjust for historical systemic racism is itself a form of discrimination.
Global Commentary: He has frequently commented on South African politics, often expressing concern about "white genocide" in the country and criticizing the "Kill the Boer" chant used by some political groups, which he interprets as a literal call for violence against white farmers.
Note on Musk’s Perspective: Musk has consistently denied allegations of racism or antisemitism, describing himself as a "pro-Semite" and a "free-speech absolutist." He maintains that his comments are intended to highlight what he views as "reverse racism" and a decline in Western civilization due to "woke" ideology. Google Gemini
Georgia Governor Calls Special Session to Redistrict for 2028 Elections
Georgia Governor Calls Special Session to Redistrict for 2028 Elections
“Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called a special legislative session for June 17 to redraw legislative districts for the 2028 election cycle. The session will also address changes to the state’s voting system, including a new law requiring the abandonment of the current QR code-based ballot counting system. This change, set to take effect on July 1, has raised concerns about potential complications in the upcoming November elections.
Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, also asked lawmakers to delay changes to the state’s election system that could cause disarray in the midterms.
Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia on Wednesday called lawmakers back to the capital next month to redraw the state’s legislative districts for the 2028 election cycle, and to work on changes to the state’s voting system.
The call for a special session, which will begin on June 17, comes as Southern lawmakers have been rushing to reconfigure congressional maps to be more favorable to Republicans for this year’s midterms in response to the recent Supreme Court decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
But in Georgia, where early voting for next week’s primaries has already begun, lawmakers will instead consider new maps for 2028, taking action now in case Republicans lose control of the governor’s office or the State Legislature in November.
Some officials and voting experts have argued that the more pressing concern is a new law, set to go into effect on July 1, that would force the state to abandon its current system for counting votes. Such a change, experts warned, could cause widespread complications in November.
Mr. Kemp had faced calls to bring lawmakers back after they failed during their regular session to push back a deadline that would require the state to no longer use QR codes to tabulate ballots.
The new law, passed in 2024, was part of a Republican effort to overhaul election practices based on President Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his loss in Georgia in 2020, and on his persistent yet unfounded claims that victory had been stolen from him.
Critics of the system took issue with touch-screen voting machines, which print out a voter’s choices along with a QR code that includes the same information, but in a form that is indecipherable to humans. Those paper ballots are fed into a scanner that reads the QR code — a setup that, critics argue, does not allow voters to verify their choices.
Yet state lawmakers did not approve funding to replace the system, which would be rendered illegal under the law.
The pressure for a special session — a rarity in Georgia — intensified considerably last month after the Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s congressional map, which had been drawn to have two majority-minority districts, an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Mr. Kemp quickly signaled that, unlike other Southern states, Georgia would not try to change its maps in time for November, noting that early voting for the May 19 partisan primaries was already underway.
Still, he said that it was clear that the Supreme Court’s decision “requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle.” Under the current map, Republicans have nine congressional seats and Democrats have five.
Political analysts have predicted that Georgia lawmakers probably will not be able to go as far as their counterparts in other Southern states in eliminating safe Democratic seats. That is largely because of Atlanta and its suburbs, which have a long tradition of Black representation, and where demographic shifts have empowered Democrats to become competitive in Georgia after decades of entrenched Republican control.
But Republicans have identified Georgia’s Second Congressional District, which covers a swath of the southwestern part of the state, as perhaps the most vulnerable seat held by a Democrat. The district, represented since 1993 by Sanford Bishop, is the only one in the state with a Democratic incumbent that is outside Greater Atlanta.
Rick Rojas is the Atlanta bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of the South“
After Xi’s Warning on Taiwan, He and Trump Strike Positive Tone
After Xi’s Warning on Taiwan, He and Trump Strike Positive Tone
“Xi Jinping warned President Trump that mishandling the Taiwan issue could lead to conflict. Despite this, the two leaders emphasized cooperation during a state dinner in Beijing.
Xi Jinping, China’s leader, told President Trump that if the Taiwan issue were handled poorly, it could lead to a clash with the United States. Later, at a state dinner, they emphasized cooperation.
Beijing
President Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, emphasized their cooperation at a state dinner on Thursday.
Pinned
China’s leader, Xi Jinping, delivered a warning on Taiwan to President Trump as they met for a summit in Beijing on Thursday, saying that the issue, if handled poorly, could lead to conflict and “an extremely dangerous situation.”
The summit, the first U.S. presidential visit to China in nearly a decade, could determine whether a détente between the two countries will continue — and what concessions, if any, either side is willing to make.“
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Huang, Musk, Cook Among Billionaire Delegation At Trump’s Xi Meeting
Huang, Musk, Cook Among Billionaire Delegation At Trump’s Xi Meeting
“A delegation of billionaires, including Elon Musk and Tim Cook, joined President Trump on his trip to China to meet with President Xi Jinping. The summit, delayed from March, will address trade tensions, the war in Iran, and the future of artificial intelligence. Trump aims to strengthen relations with China and has invited Xi to “open up” China for American businesses.
Topline
A group of billionaires—worth a combined $1.07 trillion, according to our estimates—joined President Donald Trump on his trip to China this week to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, their first summit of Trump’s second term, which comes amid tensions over trade, the war in Iran and the future of artificial intelligence.
Tesla and SPaceX CEO Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump shake hands as they attend the men's NCAA wrestling competition at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 22, 2025. (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
AFP via Getty ImagesKey Facts
Tesla’s Elon Musk (worth $829.8 billion), Nvidia’s Jensen Huang ($195.5 billion), Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman ($39.9 billion), Apple’s Tim Cook($2.9 billion), General Electric’s Larry Culp ($1.8 billion) and BlackRock’s Larry Fink ($1.3 billion) are among the billionaires who traveled to Beijing with Trump.
Other high-profile CEOs joining the trip include Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, Goldman Sachs’ David Solomon and Citigroup’s Jane Fraser, among 17 total executives attending the summit.
Trump arrived in China late Wednesday local time and will meet with Xi on Thursday morning.
Several of the executives have pending deals with China—Nvidia has been seeking approval from both Washington and Beijing to sell its advanced artificial intelligence chips to China, and while Trump approved the sale of an older model of chips, Beijing has blocked them from being purchased.
Bloomberg reported in March that Boeing was close to finalizing a 500-aircraft order for 737 Max jets to coincide with Trump’s meeting with Xi, according to unnamed sources, while Fraser told Bloomberg in November investors were showing renewed interest in China.
Trump said on Truth Social he would ask Xi to “‘open up’ China so that these brilliant people can work their magic,” referring to the executives.
What Other Executives Are In China With Trump?
Meta’s Dina Powell McCormick, Cargill’s Brian Sikes, Micron’s Sanjay Mehrotra, Qualcomm’s Cristiano Amon, Visa’s Ryan McInerney, Mastercard’s Michael Miebach, Illumina’s Jacob Thaysen and Coherent’s Jim Anderson are among the other executives invited. Cisco’s Chuck Robbins was also on the initial invite list, but the company said he was not able to attend, according to The New York Times.
Tangent
Trump called Huang and extended a last-minute invite Tuesday in the wake of reports that he was not invited, multiple outlets reported, citing unnamed sources. Huang and Musk traveled to China on Air Force One with Trump.
Key Background
Trump is set to meet with Xi on Thursday for a two-day summit that was delayed from its original date in March amid the U.S. war with Iran. The war is expected to be a prominent topic at the meeting, as China is Iran’s largest oil customer and Trump has urged China to help the U.S. reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The two sides are also considering restarting official talks about artificial intelligence, the Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing unnamed sources, as they race to establish dominance in the rapidly growing sector. Both Beijing and Trump have expressed a desire to strengthen relations and avoid any hostility, with Trump writing in April on Truth Social he expected a “big, fat, hug” from Xi. The Chinese Embassy wrote Monday on X that Xi and Trump will discuss “major issues concerning bilateral relations and world peace and development,” adding, “China and the U.S. need to expand cooperation and manage differences in the spirit of equality, respect and mutual benefit.”
Trump says 'I don't think about Americans' financial situation' in Iran negotiations
Trump says 'I don't think about Americans' financial situation' in Iran negotiations
President Trump stated that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is his sole focus in Iran negotiations, dismissing concerns about the impact on Americans’ financial situation. Despite a recent report showing inflation at a three-year high, Trump emphasized that the potential threat of a nuclear Iran outweighs economic concerns. Democrats criticized Trump’s handling of the economy, citing high inflation and gas prices.
President Donald Trump said Americans' financial situation was "not even a little bit" of a motivating factor for him reaching a deal to end the war in Iran, despite a new report that inflation rose for a second consecutive month and hit a three-year high.
Trump made the comment on Tuesday as he took questions from reporters as he left the White House for a high-stakes trip to China.
"Not even a little bit," the president said when asked to what extent Americans' financial situations were motivating him to make a deal with Iran, as the war stretches into its 11th week.
"The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon," Trump continued. "I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all."
ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers pressed Trump to clarify whether he was considering the financial impact of the war on Americans. He doubled down.
"The most important thing, by far, is Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon," Trump said.
"What about the pressure on Americans and prices, right now?" ABC's Travers asked.
"Every American understands," Trump said.
He added, "They understand that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, the whole world would be in trouble because they happen to be crazy."
President Donald Trump speaks to the press as he departs the White House, May 12, 2026 in Washington.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Democrats quickly responded to Trump's comment. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reshared a video of Trump's comments on X and captioned his post "We can tell."
When pressed on his 2024 campaign promise to bring down inflation in light of Tuesday's report showing prices rose 3.8% in April compared to last year, Trump insisted his policies are "working incredibly."
A recent poll from ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos found about two-thirds of Americans (65%) disapproved of how Trump is handling the economy. About three-quarters of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living in the U.S. (76%) with just about a quarter approving (23%). Nearly as many disapprove of how he's handling inflation (72%), up from 65% who disapproved in February.
Several of the poll's participants spoke to ABC News about the financial strain they're experiencing because of soaring gas prices.
As of Tuesday, the national average for a gallon of gas in the U.S. was $4.50, according to data from AAA, up more than $1.50 since the war began in late February.
Trump, who on Monday floated a gas tax holiday to bring some financial relief to Americans, reiterated on Tuesday his belief that prices will go back down once the conflict comes to an end.
"When it’s over, you’re going to have a massive drop in the price of oil," Trump told reporters.“
This Is Getting Dangerous
This Is Getting Dangerous
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais allows Republican-led states to dismantle majority-minority districts, potentially disenfranchising Black voters. This decision, coupled with partisan gerrymandering, threatens American democracy by creating a system where political parties can maintain power indefinitely. To restore democracy, Democrats must win power and implement reforms like a stronger Voting Rights Act, banning partisan gerrymandering, and potentially expanding the House or moving towards proportional representation.
The immediate consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is that Republican-led states in the South can destroy their majority-minority districts and, in turn, deprive their Black residents of federal representation by politicians of their choosing.
Within days of the ruling, in fact, lawmakers in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama rushed to do just that, practically gloating over the opportunity to purge Democrats — most of them Black — from their congressional delegations.
“For too long, Tennessee politics has been dominated by cosmopolitan communists and race hustlers imposing their corrupt will on a deeply rural and conservative state,” Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee wrote on X last week. “The General Assembly’s constitutional redrawing of Federal Districts affirms a foundational truth: Tennessee must be represented by Tennesseans, not socialist democrats.”
In a similar vein, Shad White, the Mississippi state auditor, also posted on X: “We’re fighting so that Bennie Thompson” — who represents the state’s 2nd District — “and Hakeem Jeffries are not in charge. We’re fighting for a country that is safe, where our taxes don’t go up, where our border is secure.”
To watch this whole spectacle is to put the lie to the idea — seen in the court’s opinion as well as among the court’s apologists — that the South has changed so much since 1965 that a strong Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed in her dissent in the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder — in which Chief Justice John Roberts took his first swing at the law — to look at the fruits of federal protection and conclude that this protection is outmoded amounts to “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
But this, again, is the immediate consequence of the court’s ignominious decision. The main consequence, however, might be to undermine American democracy altogether and push this nation’s politics to an even more dangerous place of high partisan tension and ideological Balkanization.
In Callais, Justice Samuel Alito framed partisan gerrymandering as a legitimate state interest — that state lawmakers had the right to shape their political communities as they saw fit. A state, he writes, may “target partisan distribution of voters, a specific margin of victory for certain incumbents, or any other goal not prohibited by the Constitution.” In his view, as well as that of the rest of the Republican majority on the court, there is no underlying principle of democracy or fair play in the Constitution that would compel a state legislature not to embrace the most egregiously partisan gerrymander imaginable.
As we’ve seen in the South post-Callais, Republicans have done that very thing, under the theory that representation is a gift the political majority bestows on the minority, not a fundamental right of democracy. On top of that, they seem to treat partisan identity as an immutable quality of the state, separate from the voters.
It is not, to look back to Representative Ogles’s comments, that Tennessee voters are represented in the House and many of them happen to be Republicans, but that Tennessee is Republican. The delegation must match the supposed general will of the state, even if large parts of the voting public back the other side.
Democrats may not believe the same of the states they lead, but they have followed suit regardless. To do otherwise would be to put themselves at the mercy of the Republican Party as it uses extreme partisan gerrymandering to give itself a durable structural advantage in the House of Representatives. As my news-side colleague Nate Cohn notes, Republicans could eventually give themselves a roughly 4-point advantage in the House, meaning that Democrats would need to win the national House popular vote by at least 4 points to win a bare majority in the chamber.
The effect of this arms race is a House that looks something like the Electoral College. If you can win control of a state capitol, no matter how narrow the victory or how slim the majority, then you can immediately redraw congressional and state legislative maps to lock your party in power. Republicans will lose representation in blue states, Democrats in red ones. It is true that, in theory, a Republican lawmaker could represent a majority-Democratic city just fine. In practice, not so much; rigid partisanship does not usually select for the kind of person who might try to represent the entire community.
A system in which political parties can rewrite the rules to keep themselves in power indefinitely — a system in which, barring a tsunami of opposition, they cannot lose — is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. But that is where the United States is headed, if it’s not already there, thanks in large part to John Roberts and his majority, which has enabled the worst tendencies of their co-partisans in the Republican Party. For his part, Roberts sees his work as fundamentally apolitical. “We’re not simply part of the political process, and there’s a reason for that, and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate,” Roberts said last week.
In this world, Congress is even less capable than it already is. Not only would we see fewer opportunities for the kind of cross-partisan and ideological cooperation that is the engine of the most practical work of the House and Senate, but specific communities will lose their voice in Congress. In a post-Callais world, who will stand up for Americans living in the Black Belt — named so for the soil, by the way — of Alabama or the Gulf Coast of states like Mississippi and Louisiana? What about the cities of Nashville and Memphis in Tennessee? Or on the other side of the partisan divide, the rural communities of New York and California or of Maryland and Virginia?
It is also important to consider the way this state of affairs might heighten the sense that red states and blue states are fundamentally different — separate countries, really — forced together in a crumbling marriage.
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson observed that “a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.” He was writing about the Missouri Compromise and the mounting sectional conflict over the expansion of slavery. But it is not hard to see in our moment the outline of a firm and intractable partisan divide, the kind of line that breeds animosity and leaves the nation pregnant with the danger of disunion.
What is to be done? To those who hope to restore — or perhaps we should say bring — a measure of democracy to American politics, the first truth to realize is that you fight in the system you have, not the one you might want to have. This makes the Democratic Party the only plausible vehicle for serious reform, given the state of the Republican Party and the absence of a viable third-party movement.
And Democrats must do everything they can to win power, including retaliatory gerrymandering, so that they can actually build a more equitable political system and trim the authority of institutions, like the Supreme Court, that stand in the way of greater democratization.
Fighting in the system as it exists also means that, if they manage to win majorities in the House and, especially, the Senate, Democrats must abolish both the filibuster in the Senate and any other procedural obstacle to a more majoritarian Congress.
Ultimately, political reform will take the shape of a partisan project — a specific, party-driven gambit and not a broad bipartisan compromise. This could be passage of a stronger, revitalized Voting Rights Act along with a national ban on partisan gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting — in other words, some combination of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the stillborn For the People Act — or it could be something more radical, like expanding the size of the House (which has been capped at 435 members for nearly a century), legalizing electoral fusion or moving the country toward proportional representation.
Whatever Democrats do, they must do something. If the aim of our political system is fair and meaningful representation for all Americans, then we are far from the target and receding even further.
You could even, to paraphrase the words of an old socialist saying, argue that American society stands at a crossroads: either transition to democracy or regression into barbarism.
Which will we choose?
Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va.“
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)