All posts tagged "elon musk"

This ugly truth about America's rulers was unmasked in Epstein's emails

Here’s how Kentucky Republican Congressman Thomas Massie responded on ABC last weekend, to a question about the Trump regime’s handling of the Epstein files:

“This is about the Epstein class …. They’re billionaires who were friends with these people, and that’s what I’m up against in Washington, D.C. Donald Trump told us that even though he had dinner with these kinds of people, in New York City and West Palm Beach, that he would be transparent. But he’s not. He's still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration. And they’re attacking me for trying to get these files released.”

The Epstein Class. Not just the people who cavorted with Jeffrey Epstein or the subset who abused young girls. It’s an interconnected world of hugely rich, prominent, entitled, smug, powerful, self-important (mostly) men. Donald Trump is honorary chairman.

Trump is still sitting on two and a half million files that he and Pam Bondi won’t release. Why? Because they implicate Trump and even more of the Epstein class. The files that have been released so far don’t paint a pretty picture.

Trump appears 1,433 times in the Epstein files so far. His billionaire backers are also members. Elon Musk appears 1,122 times. Howard Lutnick is there. So is Trump-backer Peter Thiel (2,710 times), and Leslie Wexner (565 times). As is Steven Witkoff, now Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, and Steve Bannon, Trump’s consigliere (1,855 times).

The Epstein Class isn’t limited to Trump donors. Bill Clinton is a member (1,192 times), as is Larry Summers (5,621 times). So are LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman (3,769 times), Prince Andrew (1,821 times), Bill Gates (6,385 times), and Steve Tisch, co-owner of the New York Giants (429 times).

If not politics, then what connects the members of the Epstein Class? It’s not just riches. Some members are not particularly wealthy, but they’re richly connected. They trade on their prominence, on whom they know and who will return their phone calls.

They exchange inside tips on stocks, on the movements of currencies, on IPOs, on new tax-avoidance mechanisms. On getting into exclusive clubs, reservations at chic restaurants, lush hotels, exotic travel.

Most members of the Epstein Class have seceded into their own small, self-contained world, disconnected from the rest of society. They fly in one other’s private jets. They entertain at one other’s guest houses and villas. Some exchange tips on how to procure certain drugs or kinky sex or valuable works of art. And, of course, how to accumulate more wealth.

Many don’t particularly believe in democracy; Peter Thiel (recall, he appears 2,710 times in the Epstein files) has said he “no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Many are putting their fortunes into electing people who will do their bidding. Hence, they are politically dangerous.

The Epstein Class is the by-product of an economy that emerged over the last two decades, from which this new elite has siphoned off vast amounts of wealth.

It’s an economy that bears almost no resemblance to that of mid-20th-century America. The most valuable companies in this new economy have few workers because they don’t make stuff. They design it. They create ideas. They sell concepts. They move money.

The value of businesses in this new economy isn’t in factories, buildings, or machines. It’s in algorithms, operating systems, standards, brands, and vast, self-reinforcing user networks.

I remember when IBM was the nation’s most valuable company and among its largest employers, with a payroll in the 1980s of nearly 400,000. Today, Nvidia is nearly 20 times as valuable as IBM was then and five times as profitable (adjusted for inflation), but it employs just over 40,000. Nvidia, unlike the old IBM, designs but doesn’t make its products.

Over the past three years, Google parent Alphabet’s revenue has grown 43 percent while its payroll has remained flat. Amazon’s revenue has soared, but it’s eliminating jobs.

Members of the Epstein Class are compensated in shares of stock. As corporate profits have soared, the stock market has roared. As the stock market has roared, the compensation of the Epstein Class has reached the stratosphere.

Meanwhile, most Americans are trapped in an old economy where they depend on paychecks that aren’t growing and jobs in short supply. They’re one or two paychecks away from poverty. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York just reported that mortgage delinquency rates for lower-income households are surging.

Affordable housing isn’t a problem that occurs to the Epstein Class. Nor is income inequality. Nor the loss of our democracy. Nor the deleterious effects of social media on young people and children.

When Silicon Valley’s biggest tech proponent in Congress — Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) — recently announced his support for a tax on California billionaires, to help fill the void created by Trump’s cuts in Medicare and Medicaid (which, in turn, made way for Trump’s second huge tax cut for the rich), the Epstein Class blew a gasket.

Vinod Khosla, one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent venture capitalists, with a net worth estimated at more than $13 billion (and who’s mentioned 182 times in the Epstein files but is no friend of Trump), called Khanna a “commie comrade.”

Khosla, by the way, is best known by the public for purchasing 89 acres of California beachfront property in in 2008 for $32.5 million, then trying to block public access to the ocean with a locked gate and signs. Despite losing multiple court rulings, including a 2018 Supreme Court appeal, he carries on with the dispute.

Not classy, but, shall we say, a typical Epstein Class move.

Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

Elon Musk's X hit by 'large-scale' child porn probe weeks after $139M fine

Elon Musk's X is to undergo a large-scale probe from the European privacy watchdog following a multi-million dollar fine and office raid.

The X CEO had initially pushed back against the European Commission and its threat of investigation until a $139 million fine was issued to his company in December. An office raid earlier this month was conducted by the French authorities and the European Union’s law enforcement agency Europol. The raid was part of an ongoing criminal probe into the potential “dissemination of child pornography."

The European Union’s data privacy watchdog has since confirmed an investigation into Elon Musk's X over sexualized images generated by Grok, the AI Chatbot featured on the social media site.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC), which is chiefly responsible for enforcing the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), issued a statement confirming the inquiry.

It read, "The inquiry concerns the apparent creation, and publication on the X platform, of potentially harmful, non-consensual intimate and/or sexualized images, containing or otherwise involving the processing of personal data of EU/EEA data subjects, including children, using generative artificial intelligence functionality associated with the Grok large language model within the X platform."

Graham Doyle, the DPC's deputy commissioner, said, "As the Lead Supervisory Authority for [X Internet Unlimited Company] across the EU/EEA, the DPC has commenced a large-scale inquiry which will examine XIUC’s compliance with some of their fundamental obligations under the GDPR in relation to the matters at hand.”

The European Commission’s Executive Vice President for Tech Sovereignty Henna Virkkunen had leveled fines at Musk's company in December last year, and said the fine is not about being a financial strain, but making sure the right course of action is taken by X.

Virkkunen said, "We’re not here to impose the highest fines, we’re here to make sure that our digital legislation is enforced. If you comply with our rules, you don’t get a fine." They added the fine was "proportionate" to the value of the company, with DSA regulations meaning a maximum fine of 6% of a company's worth can be issued.

While the fine may not come as a surprise to X, Vice President JD Vance warned the EU Commission they should not be aiming for Musk's website, something the tech billionaire made clear he did not appreciate.

Vance wrote, "Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage." Musk replied, "Much appreciated."

'Evil': MAGA loyalists meltdown over Steve Bannon's relationship with Epstein

MAGA loyalists and conservatives on Monday were criticizing Steve Bannon after his close relationship with late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was revealed, and more information has surfaced among right-wing influencers.

The former White House chief strategist's name and correspondence with Epstein were revealed in the Justice Department's drop of materials, showing photos of the two men and emails detailing Epstein's advice for Bannon, including how "Epstein was working with Bannon to 'rebuild' his own public image as 'a philanthropist,'" Salon reported. The newly surfaced information prompted a wave of scrutiny among several public figures.

Among the critics were billionaire and current Trump ally Elon Musk, former Trump advisor Roger Stone, MAGA influencer and conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza and Malaysian right-wing influencer Ian Miles Cheong.

Musk, who has faced his own questions over his personal correspondence with Epstein, had a sharp response for Bannon.

"Bannon is evil," Musk wrote on his X platform, sharing an image of Bannon with Epstein taking a selfie in a mirror and Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, a Chinese billionaire convicted of fraud.

Stone lobbed a startling accusation against Bannon that included unfounded suggestions of unlawful disposal of human remains. Stone, who has been in a years-long feud with Bannon, was citing an email to Epstein in 2013, which suggested that sulfuric acid was used on Epstein’s private island, Little Saint James, to maintain a reverse osmosis plant to purify water.

However, Stone ran with the initial implication – that Epstein had purchased sulfuric acid to dispose of bodies – to smear Bannon with a shocking accusation.

“The same thing Steve Bannon used to dissolve his victims in the bathtub of the home he rented in DC,” Stone wrote Monday in a social media post on X to his nearly 1 million followers.

D'Souza made a sarcastic quip that Bannon was a "man of the people" and asserted on X that Bannon was behind the backlash for Trump and MAGA after the Epstein files were released.

"The Left is desperately trying to blame Jeffrey Epstein on Trump and MAGA, and now Steve Bannon—who portrays himself as the embodiment of MAGA—is giving them the ammunition to do it," D'Souza wrote.

Cheong called Bannon "a fraudster of the highest order, from the start ‘til now," in a post on X.

“The fact that Steve Bannon was a Trump-hating degenerate and an ally who was trying to clear the ‘good name’ of Jeffrey Epstein through the production of a documentary is only the tip of [sic] filth-encrusted iceberg,” Cheong wrote.

MAGA weddings roasted in searing new analysis: 'Total freak behavior'

President Donald Trump's MAGA inner circle has appeared to have entered the season of love with two Florida weddings this past weekend amid tensions over aggressive ICE immigration raids and killings of citizens, a recent attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and growing disapproval among voters.

The Cut's Olivia Craighead roasted the far-right followers and their leader for the separate celebrations, the first for 28-year-old Trump advisor Alex Bruesewitz and former Miss Nevada Carolina Urrea at Trump's Miami golf club and another for White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino and director of art in embassies Erin Elmore — officiated by Lara Trump — at Mar-a-Lago.

The outlet highlighted the arrivals of the president's closest allies and frenemies at the double events, including tech billionaire Elon Musk (in a red scarf), White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz, Trump adviser Kari Lake, FBI Director Kash Patel, MAGA rapper Nicki Minaj and Kanye West's former girlfriend Amber Rose.

Craighead called out the unusual moment.

"While immigration officers continued to stoke fear and chaos in Minneapolis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was all smiles walking in with Homeland Security adviser Stephen Miller," Craighead wrote. "While not technically an accessory, Noem’s cardigan must be addressed. It looks like she ripped her dress on the way to the wedding and was forced to make an emergency Zara run."

The writer also mentioned an unusual detail at the Mar-a-Lago nuptials.

"Here’s Elmore with her son, Royce. I am not in the business of roasting children, but we have to address the hat. It is actually one of three different MAGA hats that were available to guests," Craighead wrote. "Royce’s reads 'TRUMP MADE THIS HAPPEN'; another featured the classic 'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN' slogan; and my favorite was one that read 'TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING INCLUDING LOVE.' Imagine going to anyone else’s wedding and the favors are all nods to their boss. Total freak behavior."

Overall, the wedding season was memorable.

"Two MAGA weddings, hundreds of guests, and not a lick of taste to be seen anywhere," Craighead wrote. "If they’re going to run the country into the ground, the least they could do is look good while doing it."

These powerful Americans yawned when Trump threatened to cancel midterms

The lack of market reaction to the news that Donald Trump ordered his Justice Department to investigate criminal charges against Fed Chair Jerome Powell surprises many people. After all, everyone knows that the claims about cost overruns being the basis for the investigation are nonsense. Trump wants to threaten Powell with criminal charges because he ignored Trump’s demand that he lower interest rates.

This ordinarily would be seen as a very big deal. Ever since Richard Nixon, presidents have been reluctant to be seen as pressuring the Fed. In fact, their concern about this issue often seemed absurd to my view. President Joe Biden didn’t want his Council of Economic Advisors to even comment on interest rate policy, as though giving a view based on the economic data would be undue pressure.

But there is a big difference between presenting an economic argument and threatening to imprison a Fed chair who disagrees. And we now see which side Trump comes down on.

But apparently, the markets are just fine with this new threat. The major stock indexes all rose on Monday, although bond prices fell slightly, pushing long-term rates higher. The dollar also fell modestly.

The non-reaction of the stock markets might seem surprising. After all, the independent Fed is considered a sacred feature of US prosperity. There is no shortage of economists who will insist that a Fed that is subordinate to the whims of a president is a quick route to double-digit or even triple-digit inflation. (I’m more agnostic on this one, but the markets generally don’t listen to me.)

Anyhow, Trump is now not just looking to fire an insubordinate Fed chair, he’s looking to throw him in prison. And the markets just yawned.

This reaction should cause us to start asking how the markets might react if Trump just cancels or outright steals the 2026 elections to keep his lackeys in control of Congress. Under any other modern president, the fear of a cancelled or stolen election would be silly. While they might have used dubious tactics leading up to an election, we could be comfortable that the votes would be counted, and the outcome would be binding. (Florida in 2000 is a major exception.) No one ever suggested that an election would be cancelled.

But Trump has made it clear that he considers both cancellation and ordering that some votes not be counted as serious options in his recent New York Times interview. No one can be safe in assuming that we will have a normal democratic election this year.

Given this reality, we might want to speculate on how the markets would react if Trump decides to end American democracy. We now know that most of the big money boys couldn’t care less about democracy. Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Tim Cook have been happy to cozy up to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, even as he violates one democratic norm after another. Elon Musk has made it clear that he has contempt for democracy, insofar as it means allowing non-white people to vote.

This gang would obviously have no moral issues with a cancelled or stolen election. But what about the economics?

Trump has already made it clear that he will favor businesses whose leaders praise him and punish those who criticize him. His most recent effort in this direction was saying that he intended to ban ExxonMobil from access to Venezuelan oil because its CEO said what every oil analyst has said since Trump became president of that country: it will be difficult for companies to profitably invest there.

The economies of countries where the leader can reward or punish companies on a whim tend not to do very well. The courts have provided a limited check on Trump’s whims, as has even this pathetic Congress. However, if Trump is deciding who serves in Congress, the checks will be gone. We will have full-rule by our demented 79-year-old president.

Perhaps markets will be fine with that. With enough rear-end licking, some companies may still do fine, but it would seem that, on the straight economics, most people with money would probably prefer to invest in a serious country. Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.

Dean Baker is the co-founder and the senior economist of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of several books, including "Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better bargain for Working People," "The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive," "The United States Since 1980," "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (with Mark Weisbrot), and "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.

MAGA being torn apart by right-wing squabbles as Elon Musk's X makeover backfires: report

Elon Musk's takeover and rebrand of Twitter — now X — is now ripping apart the MAGA movement, according to a report Monday.

Musk rebranded the platform in 2023, changing its moderation rules and prompting a rise in hate speech that has created a series of complaints among conservatives, Politico reported.

"Three years later, Musk’s control of the platform, now re-branded as 'X,' has delivered its fair share of benefits for conservatives — not least of which was Musk’s successful full-court press to elect Donald Trump in 2024," according to Politico. "But as the elite echelons of the MAGA movement slowly descend into obscure online disagreements and testy turf wars between rival influencers, conservatives are starting to confront an unpleasant possibility: that the right’s domination of X is doing more to divide the MAGA movement than unite it."

Several notable MAGA voices have made "digital exits" and left the app, citing their concerns about its divisive nature, including Ohio governor candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Breitbart editor Raheem Kassam.

Changes under Musk, including his push to stop bots, has also unveiled something MAGA did not expect to happen.

"Musk’s efforts to combat bot activity have in turn backfired on conservatives: A new feature rolled out earlier this year displaying the country where an account is based inadvertently revealed that many of the most active pro-Trump and MAGA accounts are based abroad," Politico reported.

And that's not the only worry among MAGA followers.

"Increasingly, some big names on the right are coming to worry that X’s algorithm — which elevates short-form video and audio clips over links to articles or essays — is undermining the right’s political cohesion by promoting the most outlandish and conspiracy-minded members of Trump’s coalition," according to Politico.

Charlie Kirk's death and the rising conspiracy theories surrounding his killing have also revealed rising battles among MAGA influencers and just how much infighting has emerged in the movement.

"The turmoil and division generated on X is becoming a problem for elected Republicans, too," Politico reported. "Even as MAGA voters remain largely united behind Trump and his agenda, Republicans are being forced to spend time and political capital addressing squabbling among MAGA’s elite activists and influencers."

'We're not going to back down': UK hits back at Trump admin over Elon Musk probe

The UK government has hit back at a US administration official's threat over a probe into Elon Musk and X.

Online safety watchdog OFCOM is investigating the social media app for the sharing of non-consensual sex images which are artificially generated through the Grok tool, Sky News reported. Concerns over the deepfakes spread on the platform have since been aired in the UK's House of Commons, the elected house of representatives.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said, "I have been informed this morning that X is acting to ensure full compliance with UK law. If so, that is welcome, but we're not going to back down, and they must act."

"We will take the necessary measures. We will strengthen existing laws and prepare for legislation if it needs to go further, and Ofcom will continue its independent investigation."

Donald Trump's administration representative, Sarah B. Rogers, weighed in on the investigation into X yesterday (January 13).

Rogers, an under secretary of state for public diplomacy, says the department will wait for the verdict of OFCOM on Musk's platform before it responds.

Rogers, speaking to GB News, said, "I would say from America's perspective... nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let's wait and see what OFCOM does and we'll see what America does in response. This is an issue dear to us, and I think we would certainly want to respond."

"Our leadership understands this because President Trump was himself a target of censorship," Rogers said. "President Trump was banned by Twitter - the old regime before Elon bought it."

"You have to take that comparison seriously. That's why our President cares about this issue - because people couldn't deal with his popularity, they couldn't deal with his success, and they tried to just shut him up so no one could hear him."

OFCOM's powers fall under the Online Safety Act, which states that online platforms have to make sure they're not hosting illegal content.

If X is found to not comply with the Online Safety Act, Ofcom can issue a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue or £18m, and if that is not enough, can go as far as getting a court approval to block the site.

Trump admin issues ominous threat as UK mulls banning Musk's X: 'Nothing is off the table'

The Department of State has warned "nothing is off the table" should the UK move to ban Elon Musk's social media platform, X.

Donald Trump's administration representative, Sarah B. Rogers, weighed in on the investigation into X. Rogers, an under secretary of state for public diplomacy, says the department will wait for the verdict of OFCOM on Musk's platform before it responds. OFCOM, the UK's online safety and communications watchdog, is investigating X over concerns about AI-generated deepfakes spread on the platform.

The Department of State representative said there was an increased interest from Trump and the administration in the investigation because the President and Vice President, JD Vance, are "huge champions" of free speech.

"Our leadership understands this because President Trump was himself a target of censorship," Rogers said. "President Trump was banned by Twitter - the old regime before Elon bought it."

The Prime Minister of the UK, Keir Starmer, says the government will act fast should X fail the OFCOM investigation. He said, "If X cannot control Grok, we will - and we'll do it fast, because if you profit from harm and abuse, you lose the right to self regulate."

Despite Rogers' claims for protecting free speech, it appears Vice President JD Vance is on the side of regulating the social media app's AI tool. According to Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, both he and Vance are in agreement on what needs to happen with Grok's AI-generated images.

Lammy told The Guardian last week, "We discussed Greenland and I also raised with him the Grok issue and the horrendous, horrific situation in which this new technology is allowing deepfakes and the manipulation of images of women and children, which is just absolutely abhorrent. He agreed with me that it was entirely unacceptable."

"I think he recognised the very seriousness with which images of women and children could be manipulated in this way, and he recognised how despicable, unacceptable, that is and I found him sympathetic to that position. And in fact, we’ve been in touch again, today, about this very serious issue."

'I'm begging you': Elon Musk gets impassioned plea as he gets 'back on the Trump train'

Elon Musk has "renewed his bromance" with President Donald Trump and dropped his plans to create a third party.

The richest man in the world has been quietly cutting checks for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and appears to be moving back to politics, The Guardian's Arwa Mahdawi wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday.

"On New Year’s Day, Musk made his renewed support public by responding to a post by a conservative influencer claiming Musk was 'going all-in funding Republicans,'" Mahdawi wrote. "Musk appeared to confirm this with the statement: 'America is toast if the radical left wins.' Looks like the billionaire has now abandoned his third-party plans and is back on the Trump train."

The death of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk was apparently the catalyst to bring Trump and Musk back together, she wrote.

"So who do we have to thank for two of the most awful men in the world joining forces again? Well, the ghost of Charlie Kirk for one," Mahdawi wrote. "Before he was murdered, Kirk talked about how he was desperate to get Trump and Musk to reconcile. And his death seems to have achieved that: Kirk’s memorial in September brought the two men together for their first public appearance since the feud."

Vice President JD Vance, who has signaled interest in running for president in 2028, "has been very busy brokering a truce and getting Musk to rethink his third-party plans" and has his own motivations to keep the billionaire in his circle, wrote Mahdawi.

"Musk’s unlimited funds played a large part in getting Trump back in the White House and you imagine Vance is keen to keep the money spigot on," Mahdawi added.

She concluded with a plea.

'Please sir, I’m begging you, can you take up a nice hobby? Or spend some quality time with your army of children, perhaps? Or get in one of your rockets and go for a very long ride in outer space? Just do something that isn’t meddling in the government! Because I have a feeling this new political act is going to end very badly for everyone."

Rubio's shocking decision makes RFK Jr.'s cuts look like child's play

For much of 2025, public-health debates in the United States have focused on the damage being caused by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with his reckless vaccine policy decisions, deep funding cuts, the wholesale firing of experienced public health professionals across Health and Human Services agencies, and the loss of trust in public health institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

His actions weakened domestic health protections and further eroded trust in science, evidence based decision making and the scientific method itself.

But even accounting for all of Kennedy’s harm, the most destructive public health decision of 2025 didn’t come from his agency. It came from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio via elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

That decision will cost more lives, undermine more health systems and increase global health risk more than any other public health policy choice made this year. It also delivered a severe blow to America’s ability to lead through diplomacy.

USAID provided key global public health infrastructure

For decades, USAID was one of the most important public-health institutions on the planet, arguably more consequential than the World Health Organization or the Gates Foundation. It served as a core pillar of global disease prevention and health-system stability. Today, it’s gone.

USAID funded (and held partners accountable for) infectious disease surveillance, HIV treatment, tuberculosis and malaria prevention, maternal and child health services, clean water and sanitation systems, nutrition programs for mothers and infants, vaccine delivery infrastructure and health workforce training in developing nations.

USAID’s work stopped outbreaks before they became pandemics. It reduced mass displacement. It stabilized regions where collapsing health systems fuel hunger, conflict and migration. It improved women’s health, helped families plan their futures and helped entire populations escape poverty.

USAID focused on upstream prevention on a global scale. It was also one of our most effective tools for building diplomatic influence.

Hard power, soft power: why USAID mattered

In international affairs, countries project power in two ways. Hard power relies on forces like military strength, sanctions and the threat of punishment. Soft power relies on trust, humanitarian aid, scientific cooperation and being seen as a reliable partner acting in good faith.

USAID was a cornerstone of American soft power. When the U.S. helped countries prevent disease, strengthen health systems, and keep children alive and families out of poverty, it built credibility. We earned cooperation and trust. It made American leadership legitimate rather than coercive.

Eliminating USAID didn’t just dismantle public health infrastructure; it dramatically weakened our soft power. It broadcasts that the U.S. is transactional, unreliable and disinterested in shared global responsibility.

That erosion of trust will make cooperation during future emergencies far more difficult not only for this administration, but for future ones that may want to restore America’s role as a force for good.

Damage is under way

Thanks to Secretary Rubio disease surveillance is collapsing, meaning outbreaks are detected later or not at all. Interruptions in HIV and tuberculosis treatment are fueling drug resistance, which will inevitably reach us as well.

Gaps in maternal and child health services are translating into preventable deaths. Weakening vaccine infrastructure invites the return of diseases that were on the decline.

Responsibility for this decision is clear. As Secretary of State, Rubio presided over, defended, and even trumpeted the dismantling of USAID. President Donald Trump supported it. Elon Musk helped drive the ideological and operational wrecking ball that made it possible.

Together, they reframed global public health as expendable “foreign aid” rather than what it is: A frontline defense against disease, instability, humanitarian catastrophe and a key source of American soft power.

What history will remember

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done real damage to public health in 2025. But history will judge the elimination of USAID as something even worse: an abdication of public health responsibility trading several decades of disease prevention and diplomacy for personal ambition and professional survival.

History will remember Rubio’s decision as an abandonment of global public health and soft power, not dollars “saved.”

Will Humble is a long-time public health enthusiast and is currently the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA). His 40 years in public health include more than 2 decades at the Arizona Department of Health Services, where he served in various roles including as the Director from 2009 to 2015. He continues to be involved in health policy in his role as the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association.