Blog

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — X Corp., the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections.

The company’s federal lawsuit filed this week also contends that the 2023 state law is preempted by a 1996 federal statute that shields social media from being held responsible for material posted on their platforms.

“While the law’s reference to banning ‘deep fakes’ might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech,” the company said in a statement. “Instead of defending democracy, this law would erode it.”

Minnesota’s law imposes criminal penalties — including jail time — for disseminating a deepfake video, image or audio if a person knows it’s fake, or acts with reckless disregard to its authenticity, either within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of early voting in a primary or general election.

It says the intent must be to injure a candidate or influence an election result. And it defines deepfakes as material so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it’s real, and generated by artificial intelligence or other technical means.

“Elon Musk funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2024 presidential election and tried to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat,” said the law’s author, Democratic state Sen. Erin Maye Quade.

“Of course he is upset that Minnesota law prevents him from spreading deepfakes that meant to harm candidates and influence elections. Minnesota’s law is clear and precise, while this lawsuit is petty, misguided and a waste of the Attorney General Office’s time and resources,” her statement said.

Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office, which is legally obligated to defend the constitutionality of state laws in court, said in a statement that it’s “reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in the appropriate time and manner.”

The Minnesota law was already the subject of a constitutional challenge by Christopher Kohls, a content creator, and GOP state Rep. Mary Franson, who likes to post AI-generated parodies of politicians. That case is on hold while they appeal to overturn a judge’s denial of their request to suspend the law.

The attorney general’s office argues in that case that deepfakes are a real and growing threat to free elections and democratic institutions, that the law is a legitimate and constitutional response to the problem, and that it contains important limitations on its scope that protect satire and parody.

X, formerly known as Twitter, said it’s the only social media platform challenging the Minnesota law, and that it has also challenged other laws it considers infringements of free speech, such as a 2024 California political deepfakes law that a judge has blocked.

X said in its statement that its “Community Notes” feature allows users to flag content they consider problematic, and that it’s been adopted by Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. The company’s lawsuit said its “Authenticity Policy” and “Grok AI” tool provide additional safeguards.

Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor and expert on technology law, said in an interview Friday that it’s important to separate the free-speech issues from whatever one thinks about the controversial Musk.

“I’m almost positive that this will be struck down,” Rozenshtein said.

There’s no exception under the First Amendment for false or misleading political speech, even lies, he said. And the potential for criminal penalties gives social media companies like X and Facebook “an incentive to take down anything that might be a deepfake. … You’re going to censor a massive amount to comply with this law.”

Deepfakes aren’t good, but it would be nice to get evidence that they’re causing actual problems before imposing such limits on free speech, the professor said. And while it’s easy to focus on the supply of misinformation, the large demand for it is the problem.

“People want to be fooled, and it’s very bad for our democracy, but it’s not something I think can be solved with a deepfakes ban,” he said.

MINNEAPOLIS — X Corp., the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections.

The company’s federal lawsuit filed this week also contends that the 2023 state law is preempted by a 1996 federal statute that shields social media from being held responsible for material posted on their platforms.

“While the law’s reference to banning ‘deep fakes’ might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech,” the company said in a statement. “Instead of defending democracy, this law would erode it.”

Minnesota’s law imposes criminal penalties — including jail time — for disseminating a deepfake video, image or audio if a person knows it’s fake, or acts with reckless disregard to its authenticity, either within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of early voting in a primary or general election.

It says the intent must be to injure a candidate or influence an election result. And it defines deepfakes as material so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it’s real, and generated by artificial intelligence or other technical means.

“Elon Musk funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2024 presidential election and tried to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat,” said the law’s author, Democratic state Sen. Erin Maye Quade.

“Of course he is upset that Minnesota law prevents him from spreading deepfakes that meant to harm candidates and influence elections. Minnesota’s law is clear and precise, while this lawsuit is petty, misguided and a waste of the Attorney General Office’s time and resources,” her statement said.

Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office, which is legally obligated to defend the constitutionality of state laws in court, said in a statement that it’s “reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in the appropriate time and manner.”

The Minnesota law was already the subject of a constitutional challenge by Christopher Kohls, a content creator, and GOP state Rep. Mary Franson, who likes to post AI-generated parodies of politicians. That case is on hold while they appeal to overturn a judge’s denial of their request to suspend the law.

The attorney general’s office argues in that case that deepfakes are a real and growing threat to free elections and democratic institutions, that the law is a legitimate and constitutional response to the problem, and that it contains important limitations on its scope that protect satire and parody.

X, formerly known as Twitter, said it’s the only social media platform challenging the Minnesota law, and that it has also challenged other laws it considers infringements of free speech, such as a 2024 California political deepfakes law that a judge has blocked.

X said in its statement that its “Community Notes” feature allows users to flag content they consider problematic, and that it’s been adopted by Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. The company’s lawsuit said its “Authenticity Policy” and “Grok AI” tool provide additional safeguards.

Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor and expert on technology law, said in an interview Friday that it’s important to separate the free-speech issues from whatever one thinks about the controversial Musk.

“I’m almost positive that this will be struck down,” Rozenshtein said.

There’s no exception under the First Amendment for false or misleading political speech, even lies, he said. And the potential for criminal penalties gives social media companies like X and Facebook “an incentive to take down anything that might be a deepfake. … You’re going to censor a massive amount to comply with this law.”

Deepfakes aren’t good, but it would be nice to get evidence that they’re causing actual problems before imposing such limits on free speech, the professor said. And while it’s easy to focus on the supply of misinformation, the large demand for it is the problem.

“People want to be fooled, and it’s very bad for our democracy, but it’s not something I think can be solved with a deepfakes ban,” he said.

With Tesla CEO Elon Musk set to return to Tesla after spending the last three months with the Trump administration, the stock is kicking into high gear.

Shares of the electric vehicle maker have surged as much as 20% since Elon Musk announced plans to devote much more time to the company starting in May.

The news, shared during Tesla’s first-quarter earnings call on Tuesday, amounted to an adrenaline shot for shareholders who have been annoyed by Musk’s divided attention.

By late Friday, Tesla stock was trading as high as $286.85 per share, up 20% from Tuesday’s closing price of $237.97.

Some analysts are keeping their fingers crossed that this could be the start of an enduring recovery. Since Trump’s inauguration, the Tesla CEO has made waves as the unofficial head of the Department of Government Efficiency, a role which has politicized Tesla’s brand among consumers.

Given DOGE’s contentious work — including initiating sweeping federal layoffs — investors this year have grown worried about damage to the brand. They had their reasons: Tesla boycotts and protests grew in the first quarter, while weak deliveries and sales data in the US and abroad led to a dismal earnings report on Tuesday.

“It’s going to be viewed historically as probably the most important conference call Musk has ever had,” Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said about the DOGE step-back announcement, speaking to Bloomberg TV. Though a long-time Tesla bull, Ives was a loud critic of Musk’s political ambitions in the first quarter.

After getting a boost from Musk’s DOGE departure, the stock saw a fresh catalyst for more gains on Friday.

The US Department of Transportation announced looser rules on autonomous vehicles, with self-driving cars used for testing to be exempt from certain safety procedures. The change was presented as a way to help keep American firms competitive against a growing Chinese rivalry.

“This Administration understands that we’re in a race with China to out-innovate, and the stakes couldn’t be higher,” U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said in a statement. “As part of DOT’s innovation agenda, our new framework will slash red tape and move us closer to a single national standard that spurs innovation and prioritizes safety.”

Anti-Elon Musk stickers sold by MadPufferStickers

MadPufferStickers

hide caption

toggle caption

MadPufferStickers

In recent months, an increasing number of Tesla owners have put stickers on their cars to signal their disapproval of Tesla’s founder and CEO, Elon Musk, and his work in the Trump administration.

Matthew Hiller, owner of online shop MadPufferStickers, listed the sticker, “I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy,” on his store in 2023, after becoming disillusioned with how Musk was running X.

“[Musk] was sort of becoming a bully and sort of pushing disinformation. And due to that, I just didn’t want anything to do with him or his brand.”

Hiller, who works at an aquarium in Hawaii, initially just sold fish stickers on his online shop as a side-hustle. A few years ago, he considered buying a Tesla.

“I thought they were very cool. I liked the tech. I liked the fact that they were good for the environment,” Hiller said.

But ultimately he decided against it, and added that first sticker for the Tesla owners who shared his sentiment about Musk.

“I mean, some things are more important than just tech, you know, like, I just don’t want to support someone who is so against who I am and what I believe,” Hiller said. “It was a choice and I didn’t want to be just confused for someone who supported him or agreed with him.”

Since then, he’s added more stickers including ones that read “Anti Elon Tesla club,” “Elon killed my resale value” and “Elon is a dogebag.” Sales took off around the time Musk became a fixture of President Trump’s presidential campaign. MadPufferStickers raked in more than $100,000 over a 30-day stretch between January and February, Hiller said.

He added that he’s sold 70,000 stickers, magnets and clings across Amazon, eBay, Etsy and Redbubble.

Around half of Americans have negative views of Tesla and Elon Musk, according to an April CNBC survey. Hiller’s sales reflect public sentiment about Musk — as well as sales of Teslas, which have fallen dramatically.

The company’s revenue from cars dropped by 20% in the first quarter of the year compared to last year.

Tesla blames that on factors like customers waiting for the new version of the Model Y. Industry analysts say it’s also because of the way customers view Musk, especially his government-slashing action with the unit known as DOGE, or “Department of Government Efficiency.”

Hiller says spikes in sales correlated to Musk appearing in the news. When Musk was seen on stage at a Trump rally — he said he went from selling 50 to 100 stickers per day, to selling hundreds per day. When Musk gestured in a way reminiscent of a Nazi salute at a Trump inauguration event in January, Hiller’s sales hit 500 per day.

Hiller has heard of customers who don’t necessarily disapprove of Musk using the stickers to keep themselves safe — in the wake of several attacks against Tesla vehicles and dealerships.

“Occasionally I get people on my Etsy store, they buy a sticker as a gift, and then they get to write a little note along with the gift to the recipient,” Hiller said. “And occasionally I read the notes and I see one that says like, ‘Happy birthday, from dad. This is to protect you on the mean streets of L.A.’”

He also says the stickers are not just a blue state phenomena.

“I sort of track the cities they were coming from. So of course, I saw a lot of California, San Francisco was huge, and New York, a lot of blue states,” Hiller said. “But then, as time went on, and as everything sort of evolved with what was going on with Elon, I started to see every state, you know, Oklahoma, Missouri, Montana. I started getting Puerto Rico. This is not limited to the United States either. I’ve shipped to so many countries that I lost track.”

Hiller says he doesn’t want to leave his job at the aquarium to sell stickers full time.

“If it ended tomorrow, I’m totally fine,” he said. “You know, I didn’t set out to do this. And it’s certainly not my business plan going forward. I mean, it’s not a really good business plan to bank on a billionaire just annoying people forever.”

Tesla did not respond to NPR’s request for comment about MadPufferStickers.

This story was edited for radio by Adam Bearne and edited for digital by Obed Manuel.

Troy Meink, secretary of the US Air Force nominee for US President Donald Trump, during a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, March 27, 2025. (Photographer: Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — SpaceX founder Elon Musk was present at President Donald Trump’s interview of his Air Force Secretary nominee Troy Meink, confirmed Meink in written responses to Sen. Elizabeth Warren obtained by Breaking Defense.

Musk was “one of many” people present at the meeting and only Trump directed questions toward the nominee, Meink stated. However, the disclosure could raise further concerns about Meink’s ties to SpaceX and Musk after Reuters reported in February — citing seven people familiar with the matter — that Musk had recommended Meink for the job after Meink helped push a multi-billion dollar satellite contract toward SpaceX.

Meink — who is currently the National Reconnaissance Office’s principal deputy director — said that, to his knowledge, Musk played no role in his selection as the Air Force secretary nominee and that the billionaire did not make any requests of Meink in return.

“I have no relationship with Space X or Mr. Musk outside of a professional relationship in execution of my current duties,” Meink stated, adding in a separate response that he had never been counseled that he had a conflict of interest.

Details of Musk’s presence at Meink’s interview was first reported by Politico.

Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., previously raised concerns about Meink’s nomination in February following the publication of the Reuters article, which they said included “incredibly serious allegations of misconduct and favoritism.” In their letter, the senators asked Meink to respond to questions about his relationship with Musk and SpaceX — questions that Warren said in a statement today have not been sufficiently answered.

“Musk sitting in on Meink’s interview was highly inappropriate, raising more questions about whether he hand-picked Meink — and if so, why,” Warren said. “What was Elon’s role here and what does he get out of it? Nobody elected Musk to anything—he should not be selecting our national security officials, especially if they have the power to give him billions in taxpayer dollars.”

It is unclear whether news of Musk’s presence during Meink’s interview could put pressure on his nomination, which could come to a vote as soon as next week. However, at his confirmation hearing last month in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Meink faced no questions from lawmakers about his ties to Musk, with senators largely concerned about parochial matters or specific weapons programs of interest.

Beyond answering questions about Musk in his written responses to Warren, Meink provided responses about how he would ensure a fair bidding process for industry competitors if confirmed to be the Air Force secretary.

“I have a long and distinguished record of encouraging innovation, competition and expanding the industrial base during my time at the NRO,” he said. “If confirmed I would bring that experience to the Department of the Air Force and ensure that leadership at all levels was actively encouraging innovation and competition in the defense industrial base.”

He also distanced himself from comments made by Musk in November that “manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones.”

“I do not associate myself with those remarks,” Meink wrote.

A top-ranking member of DOGE, who’s also one of Elon Musk’s closest friends, reportedly stands to net millions hawking shares out the back door of the Tesla CEO’s private companies.

Venture capitalist Antonio Gracias, founder of Valor Equity Partners, is apparently offering investors roughly $1 billion in SpaceX and xAI shares as part of a private sale likely to secure millions for both himself and others involved in the deal, according to a Wall Street Journal article published Thursday.

That offering also throws into question the kind of corporate maneuvering SpaceX has undertaken, despite its exponential growth over the past two decades, to remain a private firm, in turn limiting how far it is legally required to publicly disclose information about its finances.

Having previously served on the board of both Tesla and SpaceX, Gracias is reportedly one of Musk’s oldest and closest friends, with both men’s families spending Christmases and other vacations together.

Earlier in March, he also joined Musk’s controversial DOGE initiative, reportedly leading the charge on slashing costs at the Social Security Administration—a move which even hardline Republican officials and diehard MAGA loyalists have expressed concern could cost President Donald Trump among more economically vulnerable members of his support base.

According to the WSJ, it’s unusual for companies to remain private while enjoying the kind of growth SpaceX has seen over the past few years, with its value rocketing from just $12 billion in 2015 to roughly $350 billion toward the end of last year.

The newspaper states that one of the ways Musk’s space exploration firm has been able to maintain its private status, and the accompanying exemption from public disclosure of key financial information like profits and losses, is for existing investors to sell off shares via ‘special-purpose vehicles’.

These are essentially holding companies that appear as a single shareholder on SpaceX’s records, but in fact represent the interests of multiple other investors, many of whom have secured those investments through private offerings from Musk and other members of his inner circle.

Gracias’ offering is only the latest in a series of similar ventures by other business interests close to Musk, among them MySpace co-founder Josh Berman and SpaceX board member Luke Nosek, to provide select investors with entry into the tech titan’s companies, per the WSJ’s report.

It also comes amid mounting criticism of Musk’s proximity to the Trump administration, not least with SpaceX emerging as a frontrunner to win lucrative contracts for the construction of the president’s ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense shield, as well as the perceived influence Musk’s role as DOGE chief has afforded him over the very authorities empowered to regulate his various business interests.