#SpaceX Defense Contracts

[wilwheaton]

Elon Musk’s company SpaceX is a U.S. defense contractor, with billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts. That makes his intervention to thwart Ukrainian military operations a U.S. national security concern, not only because America supports Ukraine’s self-defense against Russia’s invasion, but also because it suggests the U.S. military may have left itself open to similar disruptions. Excerpts from biographer Walter Isaacson’s book, Elon Musk, show Musk denying Ukraine Starlink internet access off the coast of Crimea in Sept. 2022, causing Ukrainian sea drones to stop functioning. A private citizen thwarting an in-progress military operation like this is unprecedented. [...] Congress should exercise its oversight powers and look into both SpaceX’s actions in Ukraine and the extent of American dependence on Musk’s company. At minimum, it’s an information security risk. Isaacson says Musk texted him about the Ukrainian sea drones headed to Crimea as he was trying to decide what to do. No one should be telling journalists about secret military operations as they’re happening. Elon Musk especially shouldn’t be in position to, given his direct contact with foreign officials, and his apparent affinity for online trolls, including contributors to Russian state media outlet RT. He’s free to associate with whomever he wants, and to express his opinions about the war (even if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and has vast means to spread his thoughts widely). But a defense contractor controlled by one volatile personality, who is at best ignorant of international power politics and susceptible to Russian propaganda, and does not respect that national security decisions are up to governments rather than him personally, is not someone the United States should consider a reliable business partner.

U.S. Government Can’t Allow Elon Musk the Power to Intervene in Wars

[apas-95]

here's like. a plainly known fact: the Boeing 737 was originally produced on a military contract as a cargo hauler for tanks, large equipment, and troops alongside. it was passed up and we now have the iconic galaxy and c-130. the nose-loading, gigantic-bodied, quadruple-engined humpbacked lump of a plane was, then, resold to the civilian market as a cargo hauler and passenger transport. this is not some wild conspiracy, it's just a fact about military contractors, and, thereby, pretty much the entirety of the US aerospace industry: military contracts come first, military contracts are what actually pay for the whole operation, but military contracts aren't reliable, so it's valuable to let civilian-facing branches procure some of their own funding. this is true of all military contractors, I concur! boeing, lockheed, raytheon, all the rest - and, yet, weirdly, people suddenly get defensive when the exact same analysis is applied to their pet favourite rocket company, SpaceTwitter (née SpaceX). weird! suddenly it's very important to state that the engineers really believe in the noble goal and mission of space exploration, and that they don't even really have that much of a connection to the military, and actually everyone launches secret military satellites on classified contracts so why do you have to bring that up when it's really about going to mars I swear there's some possible way to make that profitable

[elbiotipo]

Genuine question why can't NASA just build another Apollo? why bother designing a new spaceship when you already have one you know it works?

They can't *literally* build Apollo again because the tools and hardware for building Saturn V and such are long gone, they were replaced by the Shuttle during the 70s-80s. And that was supposed to be alright as the Shuttle was supposed to be next generation (though it ultimately failed at that). And then the Shuttle was supposed to be replaced by the Space Launch System or SLS which was supposed to be like, Apollo 2 (I used supposed a lot sorry)

The main thing about this is that the US congress by law requires using the SLS in all the Moon missions, even though it's a piece of shit rocket that sucks. There are many reasons why it sucks so much, but the main reason in my opinion is that the SLS and the Orion spacecraft are built by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. And if those names haven't already raised alarm bells... well, to summarize everything, both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are incredibly rich and powerful corporations contracted by the US government for everything, mostly "defense" (war) but also space.

So what do these corporations do? They bribe, eh, lobby the US congress so that NASA has to work with THEM and ONLY them, and they deliver subpar, costly, piece of shit products to keep sucking US state money, with the excuse that "space is hard", which it is, but they have no excuse for the expenses. And they're also competing with SpaceX, which Musk is bad on its own way, but it only furthers the corporate infighting.

And I mean these products are terrible and expensive. The cost of building and launching a SLS is ridiculous for something that the Soyuz has been doing since the 1970s. The whole "Gateway" flying circus is because the Orion capsule cannot go to the Moon by itself. I really need to stress that they built a Moon capsule that, unlike Apollo, CANNOT GO TO THE MOON. So they need to go through all this incredibly complex Rude Goldberg machine just to go to the Moon.

Many space-interested people in the US see this as an example of state bureaucracy and overspending, which is kind of true, but from my opinion, it only shows how the military-industrial complex and these war megacorporations has the US "civilian" government grabbed by the balls. Meanwhile, Trump's Space Force has no problem into getting good hardware and launches.

[mariacallous]

Shortly following reports of an apparent second assassination attempt against former US president and 2024 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Elon Musk decided to speak up.

“And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala 🤔,” Musk, X’s owner, wrote in a now deleted post, in response to another person asking, “Why they want to kill Donald Trump?”

After deleting the post—which could be interpreted as a call to murder President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump’s Democratic opponent in the US presidential election—Musk indicated that it was merely a joke that fell flat given the context. “Well, one lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on 𝕏,” he wrote, adding, “Turns out that jokes are WAY less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is plain text.”

The incident was the latest in a long line of increasingly incendiary political posts from Musk, whose substantial defense contracts with the US government may give him access to highly sensitive information even while he makes potential threats against the sitting commander in chief. And they point to the more pressing risk that Musk’s recent rhetoric has posed: the potential to inspire further political violence.

While Sunday night’s post is gone, it appears likely that Musk could receive some attention from federal law enforcement, if he hasn’t already.

The United States Secret Service declined WIRED’s request to comment on Musk’s post. “We can say, however, that the Secret Service investigates all threats related to our protectees,” USSS spokesperson Nate Herring tells WIRED.

“In my experience, the Secret Service would take such a comment very seriously,” says Michael German, a former FBI special agent and a liberty and national security fellow at NYU School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Typically, agents would go out and interview the subject to ensure that there wasn't an existing threat, and to make the subject aware that the agency takes such statements seriously.”

German notes that it’s possible the FBI could also launch an investigation. However, it’s unlikely that Musk would face any charges for his post. “On its face, the tweet would not meet the ‘true threat’ test, in that it wasn't a direct threat to do harm to the vice president, so it wouldn't likely proceed to prosecution,” German says. Still, “it would create a record of the investigations.”

The FBI declined WIRED’s request to comment on Musk’s post. X did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Both Biden and Harris have released statements condemning the apparent attempt on Trump’s life and political violence more broadly. In a statement to ABC News, the White House condemned Musk’s post. "Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about,” the statement says. “This rhetoric is irresponsible."

Where things get dicier for Musk is his role as a major contractor for the US Department of Defense and NASA. According to Reuters, SpaceX signed a $1.8 billion contract in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office, which oversees US spy satellites. The US Space Force also signed a $70 million contract late last year with SpaceX to build out military-grade low-earth-orbit satellite capabilities. Starlink, SpaceX’s commercial satellite internet wing, is providing connectivity to the US Navy.

NASA, meanwhile, has increasingly outsourced its spaceflight projects to SpaceX, including billions of dollars in contracts for multiple trips to the moon and an $843 million contract to build the vehicle that will take the International Space Station out of commission.

The US government’s heavy reliance on companies controlled by Musk has repeatedly raised the hackles of national security experts. Concerns at the Pentagon came into stark relief last September after Musk denied Ukraine’s request to enable Starlink in Crimea, a disputed territory bordering Russia, so it could launch an attack on Russian troops. (Starlink was not under a military contract when he denied the request.) In response to previous WIRED reporting, Musk asserted that “Starlink was barred from turning on satellite beams in Crimea at the time, because doing so would violate US sanctions against Russia!”

Neither the Defense Department nor NASA have responded to WIRED’s request for comment.

Even Musk’s October 2022 acquisition of Twitter (now X) had some experts worried about the national security risks it could pose to the US, given his business relationship and communications with the Chinese government, his alleged outreach to Russian president Vladimir Putin (which Musk has denied), and Saudi Arabia’s continued investment in Twitter following Musk’s buyout. Others raised concerns that China may have leverage over Musk, due to his relationships with Beijing related to Tesla, his electric car company that has a factory in Shanghai. And all that was before Musk—a citizen of South Africa, Canada, and the US—reactivated the accounts of conspiracy theorists and white nationalists, and began heavily pushing his own right-wing political narrative. Immediately following the first attempted assassination of Trump in mid-July, Musk endorsed Trump and reportedly pledged $45 million per month to support a pro-Trump PAC, a funding vow he said he did not make.

Musk’s deleted Sunday night post further complicates matters. The CEO reportedly has security clearance given his companies’ work on classified US government projects. While there are many rules around who gets security clearance, such as abstaining from cannabis use, the designation is awarded and maintained on a risk-vs-reward basis for the US government. Given that Musk is perhaps the world’s richest man and most famous chief executive, it may be tricky to pull his security clearance regardless of his flippant discussions of political assassinations.

“This is where Musk's status might have a greater effect,” says the Brennan Center’s German. “It would be hard for managers to revoke the security clearance of someone in a position of power, whereas they could be expected to take quick action against a regular employee who engaged in similar conduct.”

The most concerning aspect of Musk’s post is its potential to further inflame extremist threats in the US, says Jon Lewis, a research fellow at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, who calls the post “merely the latest example of right-wing incitement that has become concerningly mainstream in recent years.”

“That the owner of a major social media platform—and US government contractor—is opining on the assassination of political opponents should be alarming for Americans across the political spectrum,” Lewis says. He warns that “culture war narratives and thinly veiled racism” have already had effects on the real world, which could be exacerbated by the far-right’s willingness to answer calls to arms.

“These extremists are waiting for the justification to engage in violence,” he says, “and rhetoric like this provides the perfect excuse.”

[milfstalin]

There is much concern that Elon Musk’s Starlink intends to provide satellite internet coverage to the United States following the failure of its Red Sea “Operation Prosperity Guardian” alliance to curb Yemen’s pro-Palestinian front.

This conversation has gained traction since the company’s announcement on 18 September that it would launch services in Yemen after months of informal contracts with the Saudi-backed government in Aden. The timing of this announcement raised eyebrows, especially as it coincided with Israel’s terrorist attacks in Lebanon, involving exploding pagers and walkie-talkies.

[...]

The announcement that Yemen would be the first country in West Asia to have full access to its services surprised many – particularly because the US embassy in Yemen was quick to praise the move as an “achievement” that could unlock new opportunities.

[...]

The rival Sanaa government, under which most of Yemen’s population lives, was quick to warn that the Starlink project may threaten Yemen and its national security. Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of Ansarallah’s political bureau, criticized the US embassy’s stance, which he says:

"Confirms the relationship between the launch of Starlink and the war launched by America on Yemen, which threatens to expand the conflict to the orbits of outer space for the first time in history."

[...]

In March, the Financial Times reported that the US and UK faced intelligence shortfalls in their Red Sea campaign, particularly around the capabilities of the Ansarallah-aligned forces’ arsenal. This intelligence gap underlined the west’s need for a reliable spy network, and Starlink’s role in this context raises serious questions.

A Reuters report revealed that SpaceX had signed secret contracts with the US Department of Defense aimed at developing a spy satellite system capable of detecting global threats in real-time.

[...]

Another concerning aspect is the involvement of Israel. Israel’s spy satellites, OFEK-13 and OFEK-14, are reportedly linked to Starlink’s satellite network. SpaceX, as a third party, may provide critical guidance and intelligence to these satellites, further enhancing Tel Aviv’s surveillance capabilities in the region. This connection between Starlink and Israeli intelligence efforts has heightened fears in Yemen that the satellite network will be used to undermine the country’s security and sovereignty.

Currently, Starlink services are available primarily in Yemeni areas controlled by the Saudi and UAE-led coalition, although roaming packages allow temporary access in other regions. This has prompted concerns about data security, privacy, and the spread of misinformation, as unrestricted satellite internet bypasses local government control.

[...]

Moreover, cybersecurity risks are particularly troubling, as the network might be exploited for dangerous purposes, including facilitating terrorist activities like bombings. The presence of a global satellite internet service that bypasses local regulations raises concerns about its potential to disrupt local internet infrastructure.

Starlink could also introduce unfair competition to local provider Yemen Net, further marginalizing the national telecom provider and hindering local development efforts.

[...]

Dr Youssef al-Hadri, a right-wing political affairs researcher, shared his views with The Cradle on the recent events in Lebanon and the ongoing electronic warfare involving the US and its allies. According to Hadri, intelligence agencies operating in areas under the control of the Sanaa government face challenges in detecting the locations of missiles, drones, and military manufacturing sites.

This shortfall became even more apparent after a major intelligence operation exposed a long-running spy cell in Yemen, with activities spanning across multiple sectors.

From the risk of espionage to the undermining of local telecom providers, the implications of Starlink’s operations extend far beyond providing internet access – they could become a vehicle for foreign influence and control.

[...]

3 Oct 2024

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A disappointingly bland statement from the nation's two best known exposé journalists.

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 25, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 26, 2024

A bombshell story last night from the Wall Street Journal reported that billionaire Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world, who is backing the election of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with a daily million-dollar sweepstakes giveaway and gifts of tens of millions to the campaign, has been in regular contact with Russian president Vladimir Putin since late 2022. Reporters Thomas Grove, Warren P. Strobel, Aruna Viswanatha, Gordon Lubold, and Sam Schechner said that the conversations “touch on personal topics, business and geopolitical tensions.” 

Musk’s SpaceX, which operates the Starlink satellite system, won a $1.8 billion contract with U.S. military and intelligence agencies in 2021. It is the major rocket launcher for NASA and the Pentagon, and Musk has a security clearance; he says it is a top-secret clearance.

Today, NASA administrator Bill Nelson called for an investigation into the story. “If the story is true that there have been multiple conversations between Elon Musk and the president of Russia,” Nelson told Burgess Everett of Semafor, “then I think that would be concerning, particularly for NASA, for the Department of Defense, for some of the intelligence agencies.”

Musk appears to be making a bid for control of the Republican Party for a number of possible reasons, including so he can continue to score federal contracts and because the high tariffs Trump has promised to place on Chinese imports would guarantee that Musk would have leverage in the electrical vehicle market. 

But Musk has competition for control of the party. Today, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who lead the establishment Republican faction and the MAGAs, respectively, and thus are usually at loggerheads, issued a joint statement condemning Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris for “labeling [Trump] as a ‘fascist.’” They suggest she is “inviting yet another would-be assassin to try robbing voters of their choice before Election Day.” 

Observers immediately pointed out that, in fact, it is Trump who has repeatedly called Harris a fascist—as well as a Marxist and a communist—and that those calling Trump a fascist are former members of his own administration like former White House chief of staff General John Kelly, or leaders like former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, whom Trump himself appointed to his position and who called Trump “the most dangerous person to this country.”

Harris’s contribution to this discussion was that when CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Harris directly if she thinks Trump is a fascist at a town hall this week, she answered: “Yes, I do. And I also believe that the people who know him best on this subject should be trusted.” 

Aside from the gaslighting of attacking Harris for something that Trump is the one doing, the statement seemed a calculated attempt to demonstrate Republican solidarity. But it was glaringly obvious that McConnell and Johnson found that solidarity only in attacking Harris. Their statement contained no praise of Trump. 

The struggle over the Republican Party also seemed evident in yesterday’s decision by the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, biotech tycoon Patrick Soon-Shiong, to kill that paper’s planned endorsement of Harris. Choosing not to make an endorsement in the race, Soon-Shiong said that he thought an endorsement would “add to the division” in the country. Elon Musk praised his decision.

Today the Washington Post also decided not to make an endorsement in the presidential race, despite the fact a piece endorsing Harris was already drafted. Publisher William Lewis said the paper was returning to its roots of not endorsing presidential candidates, although it has endorsed candidates for decades and did so in its early years as well. His statement seemed a weak cover for the evident wish of the Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, to avoid antagonizing Trump.

Bezos gives Musk a run for his money at being the richest man in the world. But while Musk wants high tariffs against China to protect his access to electric vehicle markets, Bezos’s fortune comes from Amazon, and high tariffs would shatter his business. When he was in office, Trump went out of his way to find ways to hurt Amazon to get back at Bezos for unfavorable coverage in the Post. 

Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Mariel Garza, along with journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein, resigned from the paper after its decision not to endorse Harris, and nearly 2,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. The Washington Post, too, has seen about 2,000 subscribers bow out, and fourteen of the newspaper’s columnists called the decision not to condemn Trump’s threats to the “freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution” “a terrible mistake.” Cartoonist Ann Telnaes published a blacked-out square, playing on the Post’s motto that democracy dies in darkness.

Readers are speaking out against the Washington Post for demonstrating what scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder calls “obeying in advance” the demands of an authoritarian leader (although Washington Post legal journalist Ruth Marcus, who signed the letter calling the decision a terrible mistake, pointed out that the Post itself was publishing the many letters of condemnation). “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” Snyder’s “On Tyranny” reads. “In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

The aftermath of the Post’s decision demonstrated what scholars say will happen after such obeying. Rather than winning favors, such a demonstration of weakness invites further abuse, as anyone who has watched Trump in action ought to know by now. 

Trump’s people pounced, with advisor Stephen Miller posting: “You know the Kamala campaign is sinking when even the Washington Post refuses to endorse.”

Trump then promptly went a step further, claiming that Democrats had taken part in “rampant Cheating and Skullduggery…in the 2020 presidential election” and warning that in 2024, “WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again…. Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.”

Trump’s threats are designed to convince people he is a strongman who will inevitably win the 2024 presidential election. But to do that, he will have to go through the voters, who are demonstrating their enthusiasm for Democratic candidate Harris and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz.

After the announcement by the Washington Post, others stepped up to endorse Harris. The largest Teamsters union in Texas endorsed Harris before her rally tonight in Houston. In a blistering editorial, the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Harris, saying: “America deserves much more than an aspiring autocrat who ignores the law, is running to stay out of prison, and doesn’t care about anyone but himself.” 

Tonight, Trump taped a podcast episode with Joe Rogan in Austin, Texas, hoping to reach Rogan’s large audience. He was still on the ground in Austin when he was supposed to be appearing at a rally in Traverse City, Michigan, and blamed the long taping for the fact he was three hours late to the rally. Tired of waiting, rally attendees streamed out. When he finally arrived, about 47,000 viewers watched the PBS live stream of the rally.

Harris was in Houston, where she took the fight for abortion rights to the heart of a state where an abortion ban has endangered women and driven up the infant mortality rate. People began standing in line before sunrise to get into the rally at the Houston Shell Energy Stadium and filled the 22,000-seat stadium to capacity. About 2.5 million people watched the PBS live stream. 

Harris shared the stage with actor Jessica Alba and music legends Beyoncé and Willie Nelson, who asked the crowd: “Are we ready to say Madam President?”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[antoine-roquentin]

Musk has turned Twitter into a place where nearly every government gets their way and any dissenters get branded with “fact checks” that just parrot propaganda.

When Musk got forced out of his CEO job at Paypal in September 2000 by Thiel cause he was running the company into the ground, he decided he’d use his big payout to fund Mars colonization. He went to Russia twice to buy ICBMs accompanied the second time by Michael Griffin, the head of the CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel. The Russians thought he was a rich dilettante posing as a scientist (according to one story an engineer spat on him during the first trip), and on the way back Griffin convinced Musk to start a company using Griffins’ blueprint. In a classic Silicon Valley strategy (i.e. Hewlett-Packard) the company would enter in an area where there were few sellers, meaning they could undercut the competition while still charging exorbitant markups. Musk claimed he figured this out by doing his own calculations, but it’s virtually certain he lacked the abilities whereas Griffin had worked for a company doing that very thing a decade ago. About 4 years later, Griffin, a Republican Party apparatchik during a Republican presidency, became head of NASA. He promptly offered SpaceX a contract despite no viable products existing at the company. Griffin was an aeronautics engineer and an old hat at defense contractor boondoggles. He’d worked his way up the ladder at the Strategic Defense Initiative, a $33 billion giveaway to develop a way to shoot down nukes with space lasers. Now, he was essentially in control of his dream: Musk had worked as a cutout for him in building a company to his specifications that he could now justify throwing money at hand over fist to meet national security goals. Just through flattery and appealing to his interests, Musk had acted on behalf of a significant Republican constituency as represented by a known CIA figure.

Anyways, I told that story because I’m quite sure Musk's purchase of Twitter has a similar state security component whispering in his ear.

[keep-both-eyes-on-trump]

Trump Watch #2

Trump has made more appointments. Here they are: 

He has picked Mike Waltz as national security advisor.

Waltz is a retired Army National Guard officer, Green Beret, three-term GOP congressman, and longtime ally of Trump.

He has praised Trump’s push for NATO allies to spend more on defense but has not suggested the US leave the alliance.

He is the leading critic of China in Congress and has supported legislation to reduce US reliance on China and safeguard against Chinese espionage.

He’s also in support of a “culture change” in how the US approaches the defense establishment and purchases things within the Pentagon. Specifically, he has mentioned new technologies from Silicon Valley that could help with defense and security but haven’t been able to break through the bureaucracy to be considered.  

He has appointed Mike Huckabee as US ambassador to Israel

Huckabee is a former Arkansas governor, ordained Baptist minister, and a Fox News show host from 2008 to 2015. He also ran for president in 2016. 

He is a strong supporter of Israel and once stated, “There’s no such thing as a Palestinian.” 

He has nominated Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense.

Hegseth served in the US Army with tours in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan and was also a Fox News host.

He is opposed to programs that promote equity and inclusion in the military, has said women shouldn’t serve in combat, and suggested pardoning service members charged with war crimes.  

He has picked John Ratcliffe for CIA director. 

Ratcliffe served as director of national Intelligence during Trump’s first presidency. 

As director of national intelligence he was accused of declassifying intelligence for use by Trump and Republican allies to attack political opponents.

Ratcliffe is the “China hawk,” calling China the top threat to US interests and the rest of the free world.  

He has picked Steve Witkoff to be his special envoy to the Middle East. 

Witkoff is a real estate investor, landlord, and founder of Witkoff Group. 

He has also been appointed as co-chair of Trump’s inauguration.

Special envoys are not standard diplomats and typically focus on specific issues in a time limited manner. It is unclear what Witkoff’s role will be. 

He announced Kristi Noem would head the homeland security department. 

Noem is the governor of South Dakota. 

She resisted most government regulations to slow the spread of infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

She is the governor criticized for killing her dog after it killed some chickens.

She has been a key supporter of Trump’s immigration and deportation policies and has strained relations with both the Oglala Sioux tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux tribe.  

He has chosen Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head the new Department of Government Efficiency to “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal agencies.” 

Ramaswamy is an American entrepreneur and vocal supporter of Trump. This appointment means he is dropping his candidacy for the Ohio Senate seat left vacant by JD Vance. 

He has called for mass layoffs of federal workers and the elimination of multiple federal departments including the Department of education. 

Musk is the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who has taken in billions from federal contracts. 

He asked voters to brace for economic “hardship” and deep spending cuts. 

He has appointed William McGinley as White House Counsel. 

McGinley was a partner at two international law firms and served in the first administration for Trump as the White House Cabinet secretary. 

He has a long history of working with political figures regarding ethics and campaign compliance. 

He has appointed Lee Zeldin for the EPA

Zeldin is a former New York congressman

He said this of his appointment, “We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI. We will do so while protecting access to clean air and water.”

He has opposed some climate-related legislation while serving in congress according to the League of Conservation Voters.  

He has appointed Stephen Miller as White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor. 

Dan Scavino, James Blair, and Taylor Budowich have also been announced as deputy chiefs of staff. 

Miller is one of Trump’s longest serving and most trusted advisors working with Trump on his 2016 presidential campaign and joining him as senior advisor at the White House.

He helped draft many of Trump’s speeches and plans on immigration.   

He is expected to pick Marco Rubio as Secretary of State

Rubio is a Republican Florida senator and the son of Cuban immigrants. If picked he will be the first Latino US secretary of state.

He voted against the $61 billion military aid package for Ukraine and favors negotiation and an end to the war rather than further support to Ukraine to remove Russian forces for its territory.

More to come regarding Trump's announcement of dismantling the Department of Education and establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency.

The Watcher

[misfitwashere]

Friends,

Shortly after the apparent second assassination attempt against Trump, Elon Musk responded in a now deleted post: “And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala 🤔 ????” 

Musk later said his post was intended as a joke. But it could be interpreted as a call to murder Biden and Harris — at least by one of the 198 million followers of Musk who initially received it. Presumably this is why the Secret Service is investigating it.

Under 18 U.S. Code Section 871, threatening a president or vice president or inciting someone to harm them is a felony that can result in a large fine and up to five years in prison. 

Yet even as Musk posted a potential death threat against the sitting commander-in-chief, his multiple defense contracts with the U.S. government have given him access to highly sensitive information. 

Reportedly, Musk has been given security clearance notwithstanding his admitted use of drugs (Musk says he has submitted to random drug testing at the request of the government), including smoking weed in public and using ketamine (for which he claims to have a prescription).

Quite apart from the drugs, when was the last time the U.S. government gave access to sensitive national security information to someone who posted a potential death threat against the president and vice president, even if he later called it a joke? 

Underlying this is a broader question: When in history has one unelected individual held such sway over American national security? 

Musk’s SpaceX has nearly total control of the world’s satellite internet through its Starlink unit. With little regulation or oversight, Musk has already put more than 4,500 Starlink satellites into orbit around the globe, accounting for more than half of all active satellites. Musk plans to have as many as 42,000satellites in orbit in coming years. 

Space X and its Starlink system have become strategically critical to American security. Starlink is providing connectivity to the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Space Force signed a $70 million contract late last year to provide it with military-grade low-earth-orbit satellite capabilities. According to Reuters, the National Reconnaissance Office, which oversees U.S. spy satellites, has a $1.8 billion contract with SpaceX. 

This gives Musk — the richest person in the world — remarkable power. Single-handedly, he can decide to shut down a country’s access to Starlink and the internet. He also can also gain access to sensitive information gathered by Starlink. “Between, Tesla, Starlink & Twitter, I may have more real-time global economic data in one head than anyone ever,” Musk tweetedin April 2023. 

Meanwhile, NASA has increasingly outsourced spaceflight projects to SpaceX, including billions in contracts for multiple moon trips and $843 million to build a vehicle that will take the International Space Station out of commission.

Conflicts of interest between Musk’s ventures around the world and U.S. national security abound, and they are multiplying.

When Putin attacked Ukraine, Musk and SpaceX’s Starlink provided Ukraine with internet access, enabling the country to plan attacks and defend itself. (This was not a charitable move by Musk; most of the 20,000 terminals in the country were funded by outside sources such as the U.S. government, the United Kingdom, and Poland). 

But in the fall of 2022, when Ukraine entered territory contested by Russia, Musk and Space X abruptly severed the connectivity. Musk explained at the time that “Starlink was barred from turning on satellite beams in Crimea at the time, because doing so would violate U.S. sanctions against Russia!” 

But who was Musk to decide what actions would or would not violate U.S. sanctions? 

In fact, Musk was trying to push Ukraine to agree to Russia’s terms for ending the war. 

At a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, Musk appeared to support Putin. “He was onstage, and he said, ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace — we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’” Reid Hoffman, co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn, recalled. Musk seemed to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker.” 

Soon thereafter, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, calling for referenda to redraw the borders of Ukraine and grant Russia control of Crimea. In subsequent tweets, Musk portrayed a Russian victory as virtually inevitable and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia.”

U.S. foreign policy experts also worry about conflicts of interest posed by Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X), given his business relationships and communications with the Chinese government. China has used X for disinformation campaigns. 

Some are concerned that China may have leverage over Musk due to his giant Tesla factory in Shanghai, which accounts for over half of Tesla’s global deliveries and the bulk of its profits, and the battery factory he’s building there. “Elon Musk has deep financial exposure to China,” warned Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. 

Most of these concerns, by the way, came before Musk reactivated the accounts of conspiracy theorists and white nationalists on X and began pushing his own right-wing narrative on the platform, and before he announced his support for Trump in the upcoming election and posted a potential incitement to assassinate Biden and Harris. 

Elon Musk poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The sooner the U.S. government revokes his security clearance, terminates its contracts with him and the entities he controls, and builds our own alternatives to Starlink and Space X, the safer we will be. 

[karagin22]

Amazing Musk is a war profiteer, and US taxpayers are paying for this thanks to Biden...

[collapsedsquid]

The Air Force Research Laboratory is using a new five-year contract with SpaceX to better understand the constraints and viability of using space launch vehicles for point-to-point cargo transport. The $102 million contract, which AFRL awarded Tuesday under its Rocket Cargo program, will give the lab more concrete data about how reusable launch vehicles could be used in future cargo missions and how the commercial capability could be adapted for use by the Department of Defense. The intent, according to program manager Greg Spanjers, is to ensure the government is ready to leverage the commercial service once industry has matured the capability.

Good to see Elon Musk staying away from warmongering defense technology, particularly those that seem to be specifically designed for a direct US war with a nuclear power in mind.

[libertariantaoist]

Here is your daily roundup of today's news:

News Roundup 6/5/2023

by Kyle Anzalone

US News

The FBI is looking to gather new information about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age reported on Thursday. AWC

Rodolphe Jaar was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the plot to assassinate Haitian President Jovenel Moise in 2021. AJ

Mexico

Mexican TV has reported that a militant affiliated with Mexico’s Gulf Cartel was spotted carrying an advanced rocket launcher, the same type that the US has shipped thousands of to Ukraine. AWC

Russia

The Russian Defense Ministry said early Monday that Ukraine began a “large-scale offensive” by launching attacks along five sections of the frontlines in the eastern Donbas region. AWC

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Turkey has not changed its position on refusing to allow Sweden in the alliance. Boston Herald 

The US will focus its efforts on arming Ukraine and not attempting to bring the war to a negotiated settlement, America’s top diplomat said. Secretary of State Antony Blinken laid out a plan to massively expand Kiev’s military before talks begin. AWC

The Pentagon Thursday said it’s awarded a contract to Elon Musk’s SpaceX to ship Starlink satellite internet terminals to Ukraine. AWC

 Ukrainian soldiers trained by NATO and armed with Western weapons will serve as the “tip of the spear” during the upcoming counteroffensive against Russian forces, according to the Washington Post. Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said this support represents the “next level” of security assistance. The Institute

The Kremlin says it will not reenter the New Start treaty until Washington lifts its hostile policy towards Russia. Fox News

Zelensky says Ukraine is ready to launch its counteroffensive. The Hill

China

The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) announced Thursday that the US and Taiwan signed the first trade agreement under a new economic initiative that was launched last year. AWC

Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu delivered a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore and said a conflict between the US and China would be an “unbearable disaster,” a warning that comes amid soaring tensions between the two powers. AWC

US Indo-Pacific Command accused a Chinese warship of acting in an “unsafe manner” when it passed a US Navy guided-missile destroyer that was transiting the Taiwan Strait with a Canadian frigate on Saturday. AWC

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan says the One China policy is still in effect. Politico

Germany will send two warships to the Indo-Pacific in 2024. Reuters

Iran

Iran’s navy commander said Friday that Tehran was working to form a naval alliance with several Gulf Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Iraq. AWC

Somalia

US Africa Command (AFRICOM) announced that it launched an airstrike in Somalia on June 1, marking the second US bombing in the country within a week and the third since May 20. AWC

Read More

[superbdragoncollection-stuff]

When people say "why don't the rich people stop spending money on rockets and spend it on affordable housing" it drives me nuts. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of EVERYTHING.

For one thing, rockets are a valuable technology. We need spaceflight.

SECONDLY, AND MOST IMPORTANT, WE SHOULD NOT BE RELYING ON PRIVATE COMPANIES AND INVESTORS FOR A VITAL SERVICE. WE SHOULD NOT NEED TO BEG LEIGE LORDS FOR MONEY.

We decided long ago that we wouldn't have to come to the lords, hat in hand, asking them to please spend a few pennies to help us poor folk. BECAUSE THEY NEVER WOULD. WE *CANNOT* BASE VITAL SERVICES OFF THE *WHIMS* OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL!

Government, and democracies, are made by the people for the people. Government is a service that is designed to function for the people, for the greater good. Taxes exist so that we can pool our resources together for common services. They pay for roads and defense. It is meant to take care of all of us equally for the common good. If they fail to do that, that is a FLAW. A mistake. It is their JOB to take care of us. Furthermore, the government is not some nebulous entity, it is all of us. It is people. Underpaid civil servants make the world go round.

A company is designed to make money, and to make a profit. The very concept of it is not designed for anything beyond that. There is absolutely NO reason for them to be humane in any way. Wanna know why it's illegal to cut tags off of mattresses? Once upon a time mattress sellers would literally empty them out and stuff them with literal garbage. When they were told to be honest, they cut the tags off the mattresses and kept filling them with garbage. It took a LAW, and FEDERAL AUTHORITY, to get them to stop removing a PAPER TAG. Companies WILL NOT do the right thing unless held at gunpoint.

We CANNOT base our futures off the whims of random rich people, who are not obligated to help us!

You know trickle down economics? There's already a term for that. It's called TAXES. Jokes aside, Unlike private entities, governments are REQUIRED to spend this money every year. This money goes to roads, defense, the MAIL. That money then goes to the rest of us. The key difference between it and voodoo economics, as trickle down is known as, is that taxes actually exist and ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO BE SPENT.

The rich are not obligated to spend this money. They have too much wealth because it's actively grinding the economic gears of the planet to a halt, in large part BECAUSE it is nkt being spent. We are not jealous when we want to tax them, we want to SPEND that money. We want to use it to fix our roads, build dams and bridges! You want the DMV to function better? They need extra funding, staff, and supplies! Taxes pool together the wealth from EVERYONE for the common good. They are not "theft" they're part of the social contract in a democracy.

Rockets are also cool, and useful for a lot of things, like communications, GPS, and weather. You know where SpaceX technology came from? Federal research in the Strategic Defense Initiative, with the DC-X craft doing in the 90s what SpaceX did in 2012. Until the feds cut the funding for little good reason. It burns me up a private entity is doing what should be done by NASA. Yet when the only other option appears to be "dismantle all spaceflight"...?

ok realizing this needs to be said because not everyone knows:

building affordable housing is a red herring. a scam. a multilevel marketing scheme.

there is far more housing than there are people. you would think housing is expensive because the supply is too low and the demand too high. we’re taught to believe in the ‘law of supply and demand’ but that’s invariably a gross simplification.

real estate is always a great investment because land is a fundamentally finite resource, and fundamentally necessary for life. most investments tend to fluctuate, to increase and decline in value, but real estate almost always increases, and often at far higher rates than ‘the market’ at large offers.

so what does this mean? it means that there are many times more vacant homes than there are homeless people. it means buying a home and renting it for more than the mortgage while the equity only grows is an incredible investment. heck buying a home and not renting it is still a great investment. SO no matter how many homes you build, ‘affordable’ or not, they will be bought up and hoarded by the rich and housing will remain unaffordable for everyone else.

[travelinfo120]

Two big defense tech players, Palantir and Anduril, are talking to tech companies including SpaceX, OpenAI, Saronic, and Scale AI about forming a consortium to bid on Pentagon contracts, according to a report in the Financial Times. The goal, the FT says, is to challenge the dominance of “prime” defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing. One unnamed participant described this as an effort to “provide a new generation of defense contractors,” while another said this will be a more efficient way to sell the government cutting-edge weapons and other tech. Initial partnerships could be announced as soon as January, according to the report. Palantir and Anduril (both named after magical items in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”) hinted that something like this was in the works earlier this month, with an integration announcement between Palantir’s AI Platform and Anduril’s Lattice software. At the time, the companies said they were “launching a new consortium to ensure that the U.S. government leads the world in artificial intelligence.”

[mariacallous]

Since Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, blocked the publication’s endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, more than 250,000 people have canceled their subscriptions.

In the wake of Bezos’s surprise move, many journalists have pled for subscribers not to punish hardworking journalists in an increasingly fragile industry—or the public that depends on their reporting—for a press baron’s decision by unsubscribing. Their logic is reasonable, but this cry for sympathy fails to address the problems of this moment in media, when an industry suffering a prolonged crisis has become dependent on billionaires as putative saviors, from Bezos to X’s Elon Musk to the Los Angeles Times’s Patrick Soon-Shiong.

This raises enormous issues for the future of both U.S. democracy and journalism. Yet on the eve of a crucial election, the most pressing one is conflict of interest. Musk has campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, even as his business interests with Washington—from the survival of Tesla to SpaceX—are in public view. Bezos, Amazon’s founder, denies that his companies’ reliance on government contracts has anything to do with his decisions at the Post. But with such large stakes in Defense Department contracts, cloud storage, and Bezos’s own space business, there is little reason to take his word on faith.

Sadly, for now, the only practical way to check Bezos’s apparent inclination to avoid displeasing Trump might be to weaken the finances of a pillar of reliable journalism. Canceling subscriptions is no solution to the media crisis, but there is merit in making people’s voices heard in this way if it can direct attention to the unique problems posed by this new kind of press ownership.