Jury selection for the investor class action trial against Elon Musk, linked to his 2022 acquisition of X, has wrapped up in San Francisco federal court. After more than five hours of questioning, nine jurors were seated, all claiming they can be fair and impartial despite holding strong opinions about Musk. Judge Charles R. Breyer of the US District Court for the Northern District of California acknowledged that finding jurors with no views on Musk would be nearly impossible.

According to Bloomberg Law, he compared Musk to the President of the United States, saying, “As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views.” The real question, Breyer explained, is whether jurors can set those feelings aside and focus on the facts.

Musk’s attorney, Stephen Broome of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, objected to several prospective jurors who claimed impartiality despite expressing negative views. Broome said, “We have so many people in the venire who hate him so much that we’re becoming desensitized,” adding that in any other case, a juror who admitted hating the defendant would be dismissed immediately.

Strong public sentiment made it unusually difficult to seat a fair jury

Nearly 40 prospective jurors were dismissed after admitting they could not set aside their biases. One man stated in his questionnaire that he would have a “moral obligation” to convict Musk and send him to prison if it were a criminal trial.

Judge Breyer also dismissed a juror who had written they disagreed “with the existence of billionaires,” and another woman was let go after her questionnaire revealed she hated how Musk fired content moderators after taking over X. Musk has also been at the center of other legal controversies lately, including promising to cover lawsuit costs for Epstein truth-tellers after his name appeared in recent document releases.

Elon Musk’s $44 billion Twitter drama is finally headed to trial—but first came the harder task: finding jurors who don’t loathe the world’s richest man.https://t.co/mdyNoio42Q

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) February 21, 2026

Not all the strong feelings were negative. One woman who was eliminated called Musk a “brilliant scientist” and believed he had done a lot to help humanity. However, even her positive bias was considered a problem by the investors’ attorney, Aaron Arnzen, and she herself admitted she would be nervous if she were representing the investors with her on the jury.

Nine jurors, claiming they can be fair and impartial to Elon Musk and his controversial purchase of Twitter in 2022, were seated in San Francisco federal court Thursday, whittled down from a pool of 93. https://t.co/C0gfdjcH7S

— Bloomberg Law (@BLaw) February 20, 2026

The trial centers on claims that Musk violated securities law. Investors allege he publicly went back and forth on his decision to purchase X as a tactic to drive down the company’s stock price and gain more leverage in negotiations. Musk first became X’s largest shareholder in early 2022, then offered to buy the entire company for $54.20 per share, totaling $44 billion, in April. He later tried to back out, which sparked lawsuits, before completing the acquisition in October 2022.

This is not the first time Musk has faced an investor lawsuit over his public statements. In 2018, he faced a similar case in the same San Francisco federal court over a tweet claiming he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private.

That case went to trial in 2023, and a jury cleared him of all claims. Beyond legal battles, Musk’s business decisions have also drawn global attention, such as his controversial Starlink access cut affecting Russian forces on the battlefield. Opening statements are set for March 2, and the trial is expected to last about three weeks. Live testimony from Musk himself, as well as former X CEO Parag Agrawal, is anticipated.

A federal judge had to cut a significant portion of a jury pool in San Francisco after potential jurors said they held strong opinions about Tesla CEO Elon Musk, as reported by SFGATE. The responses complicated jury selection for Musk’s upcoming civil trial.

The case centers on Musk’s conduct during his 2022 acquisition of X, formerly Twitter. Investors allege he violated securities laws by delaying required disclosures and making misleading statements that affected the company’s stock price, claims Musk denies.

During roughly five hours of jury selection for a nine-person jury, court questionnaires and in-court questioning repeatedly surfaced opinions about Musk, his companies, and his political views. When Judge Charles Breyer asked whether anyone could not set aside their biases, about three dozen people raised their hands and were removed from the pool.

Strong opinions about Musk shaped the jury pool

Judge Breyer told jurors they would need to decide the case strictly on the evidence presented in court. Courtroom rules and enforcement have also been in focus lately, including smart glasses in court. Even so, some prospective jurors described views that suggested they could not be impartial, prompting additional dismissals.

Nine jurors, claiming they can be fair and impartial to Elon Musk and his controversial purchase of Twitter in 2022, were seated in San Francisco federal court Thursday, whittled down from a pool of 93. https://t.co/C0gfdjcH7S

— Bloomberg Law (@BLaw) February 20, 2026

One candidate said they would feel “morally obligated to convict” in a criminal trial but claimed they could put those views aside for a civil case. The same person said it would benefit humanity for Musk to be sent to prison and argued that a large civil loss would not matter to him, and they were not selected.

Other prospective jurors described Musk as having “no moral compass” or accused him of using his wealth to influence votes. The judge also dismissed candidates who objected to the existence of billionaires or cited Musk’s decisions related to content moderation at X as reasons for their views.

Musk’s attorney, Stephen Broome, argued for more candidates to be removed based on questionnaire responses, citing concerns about bias in the pool. Separate scrutiny around political influence has also surfaced in headlines, including Meta political spend targets. Breyer acknowledged that Musk, as a public figure, “will excite views, strong views,” and said the core issue was whether jurors could set those views aside and be fair.

Elon Musk’s new transparency feature on X (earlier known as ‘Twitter), called “about this account,” has inadvertently exposed a significant and mortifying secret: many of the most influential personalities in Trump’s MAGA movement who present themselves as patriotic Americans are actually operating from outside the United States, including countries like Russia, Nigeria, and India, as per the Guardian.

This new tool became available to users on Friday. Thanks to it, anyone can quickly check an account’s location, when it joined X, how many times its username has changed, and how the user downloaded the app.

This is easily a top-tier feature for anyone trying to cut through the noise online. The moment the update rolled out, users started digging, and they found numerous right-wing influencers who claimed to be dedicated US patriots were actually operating globally.

The revelations about the most loud MAGA voices on the internet are pretty staggering

Take, for example, the popular profile IvankaNews. This account is dedicated to Ivanka Trump and boasts about one million followers. It frequently posts content focused on illegal immigration, Islam, and strong support for President Trump. However, the feature revealed that this account is actually based in Nigeria.

Then there’s MAGANationX, a profile with nearly 400,000 followers. Its bio proudly reads, “Patriot Voice for We The People,” but according to the Daily Beast, this influential voice is operated from eastern Europe. This is awful for the credibility of the MAGA movement, especially after its largest blowbacks, when the loudest “patriot voices” aren’t even based in the country they claim to represent.

Is anyone surprised by this? What's truly sad is we have fallen for this antagonist strategy so badly.

Many prominent Maga personalities on X are based outside US, new tool reveals https://t.co/eoFeIePC92

— Democracy Muse (@democracymuse) November 24, 2025

Users didn’t stop there. They quickly uncovered several other cases of misrepresentation. Dark Maga, a smaller account with roughly 15,000 followers, is run from Thailand. MAGA Scope, which has over 51,000 followers, also operates out of Nigeria. Plus, the profile MAGA Beacon was found to be based in South Asia.

The public reaction to these exposures has been intense, especially among those who have long warned about foreign influence operations. Liberal influencer Harry Sisson summed up the sentiment perfectly, writing, “This is easily one of the greatest days on this platform. Seeing all of these MAGA accounts get exposed as foreign actors trying to destroy the United States is a complete vindication of Democrats, like myself and many on here, who have been warning about this.”

This specific issue of foreign accounts masquerading as domestic political voices highlights a much larger, long-running problem on X. Bots and accounts spreading misinformation and propaganda have been a major headache for years. Since Musk purchased Twitter in October 2022 and renamed it X, this problem has only been exacerbated. We’ve also seen issues with the platform’s AI chatbot, Grok, which has frequently been found to make and amplify false claims.

The new “about this account” feature, while intended to improve transparency, simply shined a spotlight on how extensive the foreign influence operation is within US political discourse on the platform. Ironically, it also shines a light on President Trump’s current relationship with Elon Musk.

The White House just learned a hard lesson about the power of X’s Community Notes feature after one of their posts sharing President Trump’s latest boast was instantly fact-checked. According to Huffpost, this development transpired on Saturday when the White House shared a statement from President Trump on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The president was feeling extremely confident, claiming he had just scored the “HIGHEST POLL NUMBERS OF MY ‘POLITICAL CAREER.'” He was also super enthusiastic, declaring that things are “really Rockin’.” He attributed this success to several key areas. While he admitted his “great work on the Economy has not yet been fully appreciated,” he was quick to point out that stopping wars and foreign relations seemed to be a strong suit.

He also highlighted his success regarding the border, mass deportation, and stopping crime. The president predicted that the economy would soon be at the top of the list, mentioning the “already HIGHEST STOCK MARKET, EVER,” and prices that are “coming sharply down from the Biden disaster.”

You simply can’t throw out massive, uncited claims online anymore without getting instantly hit with the actual fact

If you ask me, that’s a massive claim to throw out there, and users online immediately started questioning the assertion. The post went viral right away, but definitely not for the reasons the administration intended. Instead, the buzz focused entirely on the spin.

Users were quick to jump in and demand proof. One user asked, “Umm… what is the source of these ‘polls’? I’d really like to know. You have until Thanksgiving.” You can’t just throw out a claim like that without a citation in the digital age. Other users were definitely not holding back, labeling the message as “propaganda” and worse.

Trump White House Hit With Highly Embarrassing Community Note: ‘However…’ https://t.co/p3yhjVLZYm

— HuffPost UK (@HuffPostUK) November 24, 2025

Then came the final, unavoidable blow, delivered not by a disgruntled user, but by the platform itself: the Community Note. For those who aren’t familiar, Community Notes allow users to add context to potentially misleading posts, and they’re incredibly effective because they appear right underneath the original text.

In this case, the user-added note completely undercut the president’s boast. The note reads: “No reference is cited for the claim that the President has the highest poll numbers of his ‘political career.’ However, there is a wealth of information that the President’s poll numbers are currently on the decline.”

This feature is brilliant because it doesn’t just stop at debunking the claim; it also provides the receipts. The note linked directly to several sources that contradicted the White House post. This included a Newsweek article titled “7 Polls That Show Donald Trump In Deep Trouble.”

It’s certainly a reminder that if you’re going to claim your poll numbers are “rockin’,” you’d better have the link ready to back it up. However, if recent reports are to be believed, Trump’s approval rating is on a downward spiral.