The Trump Election Rigging Situation Is Worse Than You Think & Andrew Shulz Turns On Trump
PDS Published 02/03/2026
-
Donald Trump called in to the Dan Bongino Show yesterday, and ummmmmm *heavy sigh* …
[Clip, 12:10 - 12:16, 13:25 - 13:30, 14:09 - 14:29] Caption: “Look, I took over a border where twenty-five million people came in to our country, many of them murderers. … If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election. … These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally. And the amazing that the Republicans aren’t tougher on it. The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least many, 15 fifteen places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show, it’s Tuesday February 3rd, and that? That is crazy.
First of all, the Constitution gives states broad discretion to determine how they run their elections, not the federal government. [Image]
Second of all, 25 million undocumented immigrants did not come here under Biden; that’s just a lie. [Image]
Right, we don’t have great data past 2023, but Pew estimates around two and a half million had come in by that point, putting the total population at around 14 million. [Quote, find “2.5”]
And third of all, non-citizens don’t vote, putting aside a few extremely rare edge cases that are so negligible you can basically just say: non-citizens don’t vote. [Image]
In fact, Trump’s own administration’s probe into supposed voter fraud has so far turned up virtually nothing, according to the New York Times. [Headline]
Right, reportedly he had his DHS check nearly 50 million voter registrations, and only about 10,000, or 0.02%, were referred for further investigation of non-citizenship. [Quote same link, find “.02”]
And even assuming that number’s accurate (which it may not be since officials say some people were mistakenly flagged), that’s only registered voters; it says nothing about how many actually voted. [Quote same link, find “mistakenly”]
But of course, none of this is new; election integrity has never been in doubt for anyone but Trump and the people sucked into his delusional fantasy world.
So everyone with a shred of sanity left is looking toward the midterms this year and chewing their fingernails off, and as for the 15 states where Trump wants to “take over” voting, he didn’t name them, but mentioned a couple later on, including Minnesota.
[Clip, 08:23 - 08:38] Caption: “It’s a mess. There’s something in the water up there, and I love the state. I won the state three times, but I got no credit for it. I won that state three times, but it’s a rigged state, really rigged badly with the Somalians, and the Somalians and the theft.”
As well as Georgia, where Trump’s FBI seized truckloads of 2020 ballots, voter rolls and scanner images from Fulton County last week. [B roll]
[Clip, 14:37 - 14:44] Caption: “Now you’re gonna see something in Georgia where they were able to get with a court order the ballots. You’re gonna see some interesting things coming out.”
Yeah, he’s right, we have seen some interesting things come out, though not what he’s thinking.
Rather, we saw, of all people, Tulsi Gabbard on site during the FBI raid. [Image]
Which was really weird; I mean, we still don’t have a very clear answer as to why the director of national intelligence with zero domestic law enforcement authority would be there.
Right, because her job description does not — or rather should not — include on-site involvement in criminal investigative work.
But when lawmakers pressed her about it, she replied in a letter yesterday that it does fall under her purview because intelligence suggests election systems are vulnerable to foreign interference. [Quote, find “exploitation”]
Though that still doesn’t explain why she attended a different agency’s raid in Fulton County in particular; in fact, she admitted that she hadn’t even seen the search warrant there. [Quote same link, find “submitted”]
With her adding that she was there because Trump personally asked her to be. [Headline]
And as for why Trump made that request, one source told The Times he wanted her to assist with the FBI’s investigation. [Quote, find “assist”]
But now, The Guardian reports that Gabbard’s actually running her own investigation into the 2020 election separate from the DoJ investigation, and she’s doing it with Trump’s approval. [Headline]
Right, reportedly she’s been at it for months, briefing Trump and senior White House advisers every few weeks on her progress. [Quote same link, find “briefing”]
With a source saying she wasn’t looking at Fulton county until the FBI raid, and other officials saying the White House had given her far-ranging authority to hunt for voter fraud in multiple states. [Quote, find “multiple states”]
So apparently she’s cooking up something much bigger than Fulton County, but even there her involvement was more than just an observer.
Because the day after the raid, she met with some of the FBI agents, called Trump on her cellphone, and put him on speaker so he could talk to them, all of which she admits.
With sources telling The Times he asked them questions and praised and thanked them for their work on the probe. [Quote, find “praising”]
One official adding that the call was fairly short, perhaps just a minute long, and compared the conversation to a pep rally or a coach giving an encouraging halftime speech to his players. [Quote, find “players”]
Now that same official claimed that Trump gave no substantive direction to the agents, something Gabbard also told lawmakers, with her adding that he didn’t even ask them questions either. [Same quote, and find “denied”]
But regardless, the fact the call took place at all is kind of nuts on its own.
Right, I mean, as The Times put it, “Rather than going to senior department or F.B.I. officials, Mr. Trump spoke directly to the frontline agents doing the granular work of a politically sensitive investigation in which he has a large personal stake.” [Quote]
And let’s not forget that offhand comment Trump made at Davos. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 36:57 - 37:05] Caption: “People will soon be prosecuted for what they did. That’s probably breaking news, but it should be.”
Also speaking of prosecutions, we can expect to see some fireworks in the coming months from Trump’s so-called Weaponization Working Group.
Right, it’s a DoJ task force that Pam Bondi whipped up last year; she says it’s meant to investigate Biden’s weaponization of the DoJ against Trump, but critics say it’s actually meant to weaponize the DoJ against Trump’s enemies. [B roll, 00:02]
Either way, it’s been almost a year now, and the group has nothing to show for itself, at least not publically.
So according to CNN, in recent weeks Trump has been pressuring Justice Department officials for results in these and other investigations, recently admonishing a group of them for failing to deliver on cases he wants brought. [Quote, find “admonishing”]
So now, the Weaponization Working Group is reportedly expected to start meeting daily with the goal of producing results in the next two months. [Quote same link, find “two months”]
And according to The Times, the group’s head until now, Ed Martin, is being pushed aside. [Image and Headline]
With him reportedly keeping his title as the department’s pardon attorney, but getting marginalized in his other role as the group’s head because senior department officials saw him as ineffective in pursuing cases that Trump wants acted upon immediately. [Quote, find “pursuing”]
And specifically, Martin has long rubbed Deputy AG Todd Blanche the wrong way.
Right, because reportedly Blanche took issue with his lack of legal experience, and got especially annoyed when Martin would go around him, sometimes to the president himself, sometimes to complain that the department’s leadership was not moving quickly enough to hold Trump’s enemies to account. [Quote, find “annoyed”]
But whatever the case, with new leadership at the helm and the orange man demanding action, this weaponization group is gonna be something to keep an eye on this year.
Especially since Trump’s DoJ has charged or investigated so many people already — John Bolton, Tish James, James Comey, Jerome Powell, Lisa Cook, Don Lemon, all those Democrats who reminded the military not to obey unlawful orders, and on and on.
-
But y’all - Trump isn’t just weaponizing the DOJ, they’re also doing it with DHS and we’ve just learned about a new terrifying method they’re using to do so.
It’s called an administrative subpoena and the Department of Homeland Security has been using them to target American citizens. []
Specifically protestors, students, and those that vocally oppose them.
Right, we’ve talked fairly extensively about administrative warrants but an administrative subpoena is something different.
This is a request for personal information from an establishment like a school, workplace, or even social media platform about specific individuals.
And very notably, this type of subpoena doesn’t require a judge or grand jury’s approval. []
In fact, the Washington Post reports that officials throughout the Department of Homeland Security - including mid-level roles - have been given the authority to approve them. []
Which is why you’ve got privacy and civil rights groups accusing Trump’s DHS of using this authority to strangle free speech.
We’ve seen them used to get information about a Columbia student who participated in a pro-Palestine protest, to attempt to identify Instagram users who posted about ICE raids in LA, and even to try to get information about the thousands of Minnesota healthcare workers protesting ICE. []
In some cases, it’s smaller scale - WaPo interviewed a man named Jon who had an administrative subpoena served on his Google account.
Just for sending an email to a prosecutor threatening to deport an immigrant back to Afghanistan, where his life would be in danger.
The email reportedly asked the prosecutor not to “play Russian roulette” with the immigrant’s life - adding,
“Err on the side of caution. There’s a reason the US government along with many other governments don’t recognise the Taliban. Apply principles of common sense and decency.” []
Barely 5 hours later, he was subpoena’d. []
Now, according to supporters, administrative subpoenas are critical tools that allow investigators to skip the lengthy judicial process when searching for information that could, for example, help track down a pedophile or drug trafficker. []
But others are saying the lack of oversight and general secrecy threaten core democratic principles.
With one law professor saying,
“This vast administrative power has remained opaque even to those who receive these subpoenas and invisible to those it affects most.” []
With an ACLU attorney adding,
“There’s no oversight ahead of time, and there’s no ramifications for having abused it after the fact. As we are increasingly in a world where unmasking critics is important to the administration, this type of legal process is ripe for that kind of abuse.” []
However, legal experts are also noting that even if the courts decide that DHS is abusing its authority with these subpoenas, it’s unlikely they’ll be forced to stop using them. []
So real consequences or change here seems to be off the table.
But that may not be the case for the State Department.
Right, the State Department along with its secretary, Marco Rubio, have been sued by a coalition of immigration groups, attorneys, and US citizens.
Specifically over a decision announced last month to suspend immigrant visa approvals for nationals of 75 different countries. []
At the time it was announced last month, the reason was to, quote, “ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people.” []
Because, according to the State Department, immigrants from those 75 countries “take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates.” []
With the announcement adding,
“We are working to ensure the generosity of the American people will no longer be abused.” []
The countries in question include Somalia, Haiti, Iran, and Cuba - which is, notably, where Secretary Marco Rubio’s own family is from.
The lawsuit against the State Department, however, was quick to dismiss its excuse - calling it a, quote, “demonstrably false claim.” []
Adding,
“Many applicants for immigrant visas are not eligible for cash welfare and remain ineligible for years.” []
The suit also went on to say that this suspension amounts to a ban on nearly half of all immigrant visa applications.
So they’re looking to get the decision overturned.
But that’s not the only case against Trump’s immigration crusade we’re seeing play out in court.
In fact, a judge has just blocked the Trump administration’s plans to strip the special protection status from Haitian immigrants.
Right, more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants live and work in the US under what’s called a Temporary Protection Status or TPS. []
And TPS is given to those whose home countries are unsafe to return to for reasons like a natural disaster or political instability.
In Haiti’s case, it was activated in 2010 after a catastrophic earthquake and has been extended multiple times because of gang violence. []
But that status was set to end today at the direction of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
However, at the 11th hour, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from ending the TPS and she SLAMMED Kristi Noem specifically. []
Saying that Noem did not have the authority to make this decision and adding that Noem’s reasoning, quote, “focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian T.P.S. holders already live here, and legally so.” []
Adding that Noem, quote, “ignores altogether the billions Haitian T.P.S. holders contribute to the economy.” []
Obviously, Team Trump isn’t too happy about this ruling - with Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokesperson, saying,
“Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench.” []
But the plaintiffs and countless other Haitian immigrants are taking it as a win - despite the near guarantee that this case is far from over.
With one of the attorneys for the plaintiff saying,
“Although the government will probably appeal, today’s ruling allows Haitian T.P.S. holders to breathe a sigh of relief, even if only a small one.We look forward to defending the court’s ruling on appeal.” []
But while she’s getting slammed by a judge, Kristi Noem is actually making concessions with Democrats about ICE agents.
Albeit very small ones.
Specifically, she just announced that all ICE agents in Minneapolis will immediately begin wearing body cameras. []
And that policy will spread nationwide as soon as the funding is available.
Though Noem herself can hardly take credit - the idea was proposed by Republican senator Ron Johnson as a concession that could keep ICE funded. []
We even saw Trump agree with the idea - saying that body cameras, quote, “generally tend to be good for law enforcement because people can’t lie about what’s happening.” []
But we saw how hard he and his bootlickers tried spinning the story with Alex Pretti when there was actual video evidence so it’ll be interesting to see if that pattern continues even with bodycams.
And this minor change certainly isn’t doing much to improve ICE’s reputation - at home or abroad.
Right, on a business and political line, we are seeing companies in countries like France and Canada either distancing themselves from or cutting ties with U.S. entities over ICE.
Then, on more of a social and personal side of things, Andrew Schulz is getting a ton of attention for saying that he hit his breaking point after watching how the administration responded to the Alex Pretti shooting:
“Like I didn't think what's happening right now with ICE could happen in America. I genuinely did not think that was possible. I thought our institution, I thought the constitution would hold up.” (1:22:14-1:22:22)
“Like it it all of a sudden becomes not like liberal catastrophic thinking. It starts to become very reasonable nuanced criticism of the administration. They have just done, they have just made the most far-left critiques of the Trump administration, their reaction to this has just justified all of them. In one moment, in one moment, all of their responses from Trump to Kash Patel, they have justified every single critic. And I know people probably look at this and be like, they've done a million other things to justify them. Sure, and that's fair. But this specific situation I think is a breaking point and has justified all those criticisms. I think people's antennas are way up, people's antennas that were not up initially.” (1:22:32- 1:23:22)
Right, and people see this as Andrew kind of conceding that Trump’s critics, the people who were sounding the alarms for years, may have been right all along, or are at least right on this issue.
Which is a big deal, because Andrew had Trump on his podcast.
And so there are some mixed reactions on Andrew’s comments here, right, some celebrating that anyone who may have supported Trump is seeing the light, others frustrated Andrew propped Trump up and now wants to walk it back.
And you actually had his co-host Charlamagne, pushing on that front:
“Did you not believe Trump was going to do any of the things he said he would do because you didn’t know, or because you believed in the guardrails of America…I believed in the guardrails of America.” (1:23:42-1:23:53)
“There are a lot of things that he ran on, that were that were very seductive that seemed possible and seemed very doable and one by one backtracking on these things.” (1:28:45-1:28:56)
And so this is just a conversation that feels very relevant in this country, hell, Saturday Night Live just did a sketch about this very idea over the weekend, about people who are just now seeing Trump for who he is.
Which is big, right, MAGA has become a sort of cult, so that anyone who was even a little a part of it might change their mind feels like a big deal.
But you also have the other half of the country split between feeling angry, not trusting these changes of heart, and wanting to just scream, “We told you so.”
Go to Saily and use the code “phil” to get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! ⛵
-
Bill and Hillary Clinton have caved to Republican demands that they testify to Congress on Jeffrey Epstein, but Trump’s DOJ continues to insist that the case is closed – even as millions of files remain unreleased.
But starting with the Clintons, this goes back to July when House Democrats on the Oversight Committee forced a vote to subpoena the DOJ for its files regarding the investigation into Epstein.
The Committee also voted for additional subpoenas against the Clintons, eight former top law enforcement officials, and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Who’s currently serving a twenty year sentence on sex trafficking charges in connection to her role recruiting girls on Epstein’s behalf and facilitating his abuse.
Maxwell is scheduled to be deposed on February 9th – and only one person, former Attorney General William Barr, has already appeared to testify.
Republican Chair of the Oversight Committee James Comer has withdrawn the subpoenas for five former attorneys general who wrote in statements to the panel that they had no knowledge relevant to the investigation.
And the committee also excused former FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller from giving live depositions.
But Comer refused to excuse the Clintons – although they repeatedly offered to provide the same kind of sworn statement others have provided.
And he also falsely accused them of ignoring his subpoenas – despite their attorney sending multiple letters trying to work something out.
Of course, with that said, Comer has been absolutely right when he’s claimed the Clintons have been trying to find a way out of testifying.
They were originally scheduled to speak with the committee way back in October of 2025 – but those sessions were delayed until December and then pushed back again to January after the Clintons said they had to attend a funeral.
And then the Clintons told the committee they would not participate in the rescheduled closed-door depositions at all.
This even as Comer had threatened to kick off the process to hold them in contempt of Congress – which is punishable by up to a year in prison as well as a fine of up to $100,000.
Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, for example, both served four-month sentences after being found in contempt of Congress in 2021 for defying a subpoena issued by the committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
Although, notably, not every witness who defies a congressional subpoena is referred for contempt.
Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, for instance, was among the Republican members of Congress who received a subpoena as part of the January 6th investigation but refused to cooperate.
And when Trump was subpoenaed, he sued to try to block it, and the committee eventually withdrew the subpoena.
And the Clintons’ lawyers have also argued that the subpoenas they’ve received are legally invalid – saying this is all “nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals, as President Trump has directed.” []
But after they failed to show up for their most recently scheduled depositions, the Oversight Committee passed resolutions to move forward with holding them in contempt.
And, notably, you had nine of the committee's 21 Democrats joining Republicans in support of the charges against Bill – with three even supporting the measure against Hillary Clinton. []
And so you with that you finally had the Clintons agreeing to testify, but first saying that certain conditions would need to be met – including:
1) that the interview be limited in scope to matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein;
2) that each session would be no more than four hours long;
and 3) that Bill Clinton be allowed to bring in his own transcriber.
But Comer rejected that offer yesterday and last night the House Rules Committee met to start the process required to bring the contempt vote to the House floor.
But then you had attorneys for the Clintons emailing Comer and saying they would agree to his demands – with a spokesperson adding on X:
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not.”
“They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care.”
“But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there.”
“They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”
And with that, the contempt proceedings have been put on hold, but they haven’t been called off.
With Comer saying in a statement:
“The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again and they have provided no dates for their depositions.”
“will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members.”
You also had Speaker Mike Johnson saying today that the Clintons would have until noon to provide details of how they plan to comply with the subpoenas if they didn’t want the contempt vote to move forward.
So we’ll have to see where this goes but it seems unlikely that any new information would actually come out of in-person testimony.
Neither Clinton has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein – and both have said they don’t know anything relevant to the committee’s investigation.
We do know that Clinton was definitely acquainted with Epstein – but he is believed to have cut off contact with him two decades ago, and there’s no evidence that he ever visited Epstein’s Island.
Although he did take four international trips on Epstein’s private jet in 2002 and 2003, according to flight logs.
And he has also appeared in Epstein-related photographs released by Congress and the Justice Department – including one showing with Epstein;
another one showing him in a pool with Ghislaine Maxwell.
and two others showing him on a private plane and in a hot tub alongside a woman or girl whose face is redacted.
As far as Hilary, there is no known connection to Epstein besides through her husband.
And their lawyer has said she had “no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein.” []
So far there hasn’t been anything game changing coming out of the latest batch of the files released.
But there continues to be backlash to what wasn’t released – and to the way this whole thing was handled.
Right, as we talked about, you also had survivors understandably outraged after the files appeared to expose the names of at least 43 of them along with there being dozens of unredacted nude images.
With the DOJ leaving all of that unredacted initially even while taking the time to black out significant chunks of the files for no apparent reason.
And that’s actually why you had Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie arguing that the redactions appear to not comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Which requires that no document should be withheld or redacted based on “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.”
And all that’s as you have Democrats also accusing the DOJ of breaking the law by continuing to withhold as much as 50 percent of the files even though we’re now well over one month past the December 19th deadline.
And that 50 percent number? Deputy AG Tod Blanche has explained that by saying the department had initially found 6 million pages of documents identified as “potentially responsive.”
Saying that they “erred on the side of over-collection of materials from various sources to best ensure maximum transparency.”
And with that, he said the number of “responsive pages is significantly smaller than the total number of pages initially collected” – which is why only around three and a half million pages were released. []
You’ve also had Blanche appearing on Fox News – and doubling down on his assertion that the release of these files means the Epstein saga is all over:
“Is there any chance that any of these individuals who partied with Epstein and engaged in relations with minors will be prosecuted?”
“I’ll never say no, and we will always investigate any evidence of misconduct, and as you know, it’s not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein. It’s not a crime to email with Mr. Epstein. And some of these men may have done horrible things, and if we have evidence that allows us to prosecute them, you better believe we will.” (4:26-4:57)
And, of course, he's technically right.
It’s not a crime to have partied with Epstein – and it doesn’t seem like anything in the files released so far would be enough to prosecute anyone.
But you have many saying that having partied with Epstein, or the other things we’ve learned from the files, is reason to keep on digging.
Which is a point you really had John Stewart hammering home on the Daily Show last night:
“They’ve been on the plane, they’ve been on the island, they’ve been to his house, they’ve given him creepy cards with pubic hair, they’ve been accused by a multitude of women of a multitude of wrongdoings, and nothing has happened to any of them.” (16:01-16:16)
And with that, you also had Stewart connecting this to the broader political situation, especially the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on immigration and sanctuary cities:
“It seems pretty clear to me that there is a sanctuary city in this country. The real sanctuary city is where money and power protect you from the consequences of sex trafficking or influence peddling or taking half a billion dollars and giving away America's AI infrastructure. Not the small Midwestern city where trying to help a lady get up after she gets maced gets you shot in the back of the fucking head. That's the real sanctuary city. And these are the mother-fuckers who live there. Give me the right picture. Yeah.” (18:14-18:54)
And included in Stewart’s version of the sanctuary city is everyone from Bill Clinton to Bill Gates and Steve Bannon and Elon Musk.
And, of course, right at the tip, or the top, is Donald Trump.
Who you’ve had defending himself in a post on Truth Social – writing:
“...unlike so many people that like to “talk” trash, I never went to the infested Epstein island but, almost all of these Crooked Democrats, and their Donors, did.”
But notably, at the same time as he implied that his political opponents might be involved in Epstein’s crimes, he has also suggested that releasing more documents or investigating further would be a waste of time.:
“Frankly, the DOJ, I think, should just say we have other things to do...” (0:15-0:28).
And we’ve seen similar inconsistency from Elon Musk.
Right, ever since the latest files appeared to show that he blatantly lied about “REFUSING” to go to Epstein’s island, and that he in fact emailed Epstein multiple times about visiting, even asking when the wildest party would be…
And Musk has actually claimed “nobody has fought for full release of the Epstein files and prosecutions of those who abused children more than [he] did.”
And, to be fair, he has called for their release several times in the past, especially after he claimed in a post last year that Trump was in the Epstein files – and that that was the reason they hadn’t been made public.
A post he’s since deleted – with him now sharing a post claiming the “major takeaways” from the new files are that Epstein loved Democrats liberal elites but hated Donald Trump.
With this being one way Trump supporters have tried to argue that the files prove Trump’s innocence.
And what so many don’t seem to get is that the people pushing for real justice want anyone, Democrat or Republican, to be prosecuted if they’re not.
-
French authorities just raided X’s Paris headquarters as part of an investigation into a slew of crimes, including child sexual abuse imagery and Holocaust denial.
And they also summoned Elon Musk to answer questions in the case.
This obviously comes as X and Grok have been facing a ton of international backlash over sexual deepfakes on the platform,
But France’s investigation actually started over a year ago.
Right, prosecutors first were first looking into issues with X’s algorithm and how it handles data, but the investigation has widened to look at a total of seven different offenses. []
With authorities alleging that CSA images started increasing last year after X rolled back detection tools, resulting in fewer images being flagged.
Authorities also pointed to issues with antisemitism, right, because as we all know, Grok went on a Hitler-praising spree last year.
And Grok is also accused of denying the Holocaust by claiming that gas chambers in Auschwitz were designed for “disinfection with Zyklon B against typhus,” not mass murder. []
And France notably has some of the strictest Holocaust denial laws in the world.
Which is why today, France’s cybercrime unit and Europol searched the company’s offices, and the country’s prosecutor's office also deleted its X account shortly after announcing the raid.[]
And with this, you had the lawmaker whose complaint opened up this investigation writing that:
“In Europe, and particularly in France, the Rule of Law means that "no one is above the law" and that European regulations, once transposed into French law, are binding on everyone.”[]
Last year, X responded to this investigation by calling it “politically motivated" and denying wrongdoing. []
Claiming that the probe:
“undermines X’s fundamental right to due process and threatens our users’ rights to privacy and free speech.”
But so far, Musk himself has not publicly addressed this latest raid.
Though this morning on X, he did respond to a general post about social media crackdowns in Europe by saying that:
“Tyrants love censorship.”[]
But he does face a voluntary summons for questioning, as does former CEO Linda Yaccarino.[]
With reports noting that this comes as European governments and American tech companies have been at odds for a while now, as Europe views free speech differently and has stricter ideas of how social platforms should be regulated. []
With the New York Times explaining that:
“Europeans see their actions as a democratic prerogative necessary to protect citizens from abuse. The Trump administration sees the fines as an unfair money grab from American companies and considers the regulations to be an attack on free speech.”
And on that note, France is not the only country to crack down on X lately.
Also today, the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK announced a formal investigation into X over its personal data processing and Grok’s sexualized deepfakes.
And just last week, the European Union issued its inquiry into the deepfake issue.
So far, no charges have been filed in France, but we will have to see where this investigation goes, and if Musk actually responds to the summons and answers questions.
