Elon Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, is determined that President Trump will shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Musk argues that the agency shows “rank insubordination” and acts as though it serves the globe rather than the United States. Secretary of State Marcio Rubio, who recently took over the agency, echoed these sentiments in an interview with Fox News.
Musk’s concerns about USAID stem from its involvement in projects that he finds questionable, such as funding research that may have contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak. He also criticizes the agency for trying to censor Trump’s tweets on the previous Twitter platform, describing it as a “radical-left political psy op.” Musk accuses USAID of disregarding most of Trump’s executive orders, which he views as a serious issue.
Interestingly, Musk seems to adopt a different stance on content moderation when dealing with the European Union. In regions where he has significant business interests, like the European Union and China, Musk shows a more conciliatory approach. His social media platform, X, has agreed to join an expanded EU code of conduct aimed at countering illegal hate speech online.
This EU code of conduct, which was originally created during Trump’s first campaign, includes other major platforms such as Google’s YouTube, ByteDance’s TikTok, and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram. These platforms have pledged to review a substantial portion of hate speech notifications within 24 hours. Such actions align with similar laws like the hate-speech reporting law that was recently blocked in New York.
Although adherence to this code isn’t legally binding, platforms are encouraged to report on the outcomes of moderation actions and share data regarding hate speech. They are asked to categorize this data by factors such as race, religion, and gender identity. While The Verge points out that this compliance isn’t mandatory, Reclaim the Net highlights that the EU’s Digital Services Act enforces certain expectations.
Platforms including X recently took part in a “stress test” to assess their readiness to handle threats to civic discourse and electoral processes, especially in light of Germany’s upcoming elections. Musk has been known for supporting Germany’s anti-immigration AfD party, which adds another layer of complexity to his dealings in Europe.
Critics, including members of the European political sphere, express concerns over Musk’s and Zuckerberg’s influence in content moderation. During a recent debate, some politicians accused these tech giants of undermining democracy and failing to curb hate speech effectively. They worry that the platforms’ policies may allow harmful content to spread unchecked.
A member of Switzerland’s Social Democratic Party, Valérie Piler Carrard, accused Zuckerberg of enabling hate speech on his platforms. Meanwhile, Belgian Socialist Party member Christophe Lacroix suggested there might be a conspiracy involving Musk, Zuckerberg, and other tech leaders to control economic power and influence elections.
French Ecologists Party member Sandra Regol voiced her concerns about freedom of expression being used as a tool to undermine Europe’s diversity. British Labour Party member Cat Eccles supported the U.K.’s prosecution of social media users for illegal posts, emphasizing that freedom of expression doesn’t absolve individuals from the consequences of their actions.
Attempts to amend policies to allow judicial oversight over immediate content removal without national security concerns were overwhelmingly rejected. Polish lawmaker Paweł Jablonski argued for judicial control to prevent censorship, drawing parallels to Poland’s past under Soviet rule.
The Assembly eventually passed an amendment to work with journalists and fact-checkers to combat disinformation, aiming to uphold ethical journalism standards. Paul Coleman from ADF International remarked on the stark difference between Europe’s increasing censorship and the U.S.’s more relaxed approach.
Amidst these international debates, Musk’s team faces threats on various online platforms, with some individuals being targeted after their identities were exposed. Ed Martin, the new U.S. attorney in D.C., has assured Musk that he will take legal action against any threats.
Meanwhile, USAID has been accused of threatening Senate DOGE Caucus chair Sen. Joni Ernst and her staff, who have been investigating the agency’s practices. Ernst claims USAID attempted to intimidate her with legal threats to prevent her from accessing certain information.
Despite these challenges, Ernst continues to push for transparency within USAID, scrutinizing its financial practices. Her April letter to USAID Administrator Samantha Power outlined the agency’s evasive responses concerning its financial agreements.
USAID initially denied having a database of negotiated indirect cost rate agreements (NICRAs), which cover expenses like rent and lobbying. Later, they invented legal justifications to protect this information from congressional oversight. Ernst argues that taxpayers shouldn’t be funding extravagant expenses abroad, like rent in cities such as Geneva or Rome.
