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.

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.

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.

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 AI tool, Grok, just slapped some huge restrictions on its image creation feature for the vast majority of users, as per The Guardian. This massive rollback happened after a widespread outcry regarding the tool’s use to generate extremely disturbing and illegal content, specifically sexually explicit and violent imagery.

The pressure on Musk and the company was intense. He was facing serious threats of massive fines and regulatory action from global bodies, including reports of a possible ban on X in the UK. The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, demanded X “get a grip” on the deluge of AI-created photos of women and children appearing on the platform, calling the content “disgraceful” and “disgusting.”

Starmer indicated that a de facto ban might be considered. He stated the communications regulator Ofcom “has our full support to take action in relation to this.” Under the UK’s Online Safety Act, Ofcom can seek a court order to block a website or app entirely or impose fines up to 10% of a company’s global turnover. Starmer added that the content is “unlawful” and they aren’t going to tolerate it.

The reason for the lockdown is truly chilling, but totally warranted, given the gravity of the situation

Now, Grok is trying to control the damage. Posting on X, the official Grok account confirmed, “Image generation and editing are currently limited to paying subscribers.” This means the feature is gone for almost everyone who uses the platform for free. The idea here is that paying subscribers have their full details and credit card information stored by X, which means they can be easily identified if they misuse the function.

Reports showed Grok was being used to manipulate images of women to remove their clothes or place them in sexualized positions without their consent. Even worse, research found that the tool had been used to create pornographic videos of women and images depicting women being shot and killed. Thousands of sexualized images of women have been created without their consent over the past two weeks, largely after the Grok image creation feature was updated at the end of December.

The problem appears even worse off the main X platform, which is integrated with Grok. Research by AI Forensics, a Paris-based non-profit organization, found about 800 images and videos created specifically through the Grok Imagine app that included pornographic and sexually violent content. Researcher Paul Bouchaud noted, “These are fully pornographic videos and they look professional.”

Adding to the complexity, non-paying users have reported that they can still generate sexualized imagery of women and children on the separate Grok app, which does not share images publicly. It seems like the fight to keep these powerful AI tools safe and ethical is far from over, and simply restricting the feature to paying users might not be enough to satisfy regulators.

The European Union slapped a hefty fine on X previously for violating the Digital Services Act, and a move like that is most likely required again.

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.

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.

President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative launched with huge media fanfare and a symbolic chainsaw stunt, has quietly disbanded with eight months left in its mandate. That’s right, the agency meant to slash federal bureaucracy is gone, and the official explanation for its disappearance is peak political embarrassment.

The shocking news was confirmed by Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor. When asked about DOGE’s status earlier this month, Kupor told Reuters simply, “That doesn’t exist.” He further clarified that the agency is no longer a “centralized entity.” This marks the first public comment from the Trump administration acknowledging DOGE’s complete end.

This outcome is incredibly awkward, especially when you remember the high-profile drama surrounding its launch. Billionaire Elon Musk, who initially led DOGE, spent months touting its work on his X platform. He even made headlines in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, when he brandished a tool above his head and declared, “This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.”

Musk had previously stated he had a mandate to “delete the mountain” of government regulations and eliminate federal jobs

Despite the initial hype, the administration has been signaling the end of DOGE since the summer. Officials have often talked about the agency in the past tense, even though President Trump had signed an executive order decreeing DOGE would last through July 2026. Acting DOGE Administrator Amy Gleason, whose background is in healthcare tech, formally became an adviser to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy in March.

The dramatic shift is clearest in the policy changes. One of DOGE’s key hallmarks, the government-wide hiring freeze, is officially over. Kupor confirmed that there is “no target around reductions” anymore. Initially, the president had barred federal agencies from hiring new employees, requiring DOGE approval for most exceptions. That aggressive, job-cutting approach is now completely finished.

While DOGE claimed to have slashed tens of billions of dollars in expenditures during its short life, outside financial experts couldn’t verify those massive savings because the unit never provided detailed public accounting of its work.

So, where did the staff and functions go? It seems the federal government’s human resources office, the OPM, has taken over many of DOGE’s core functions. Many prominent DOGE employees have simply migrated to new roles within the administration.

This includes Joe Gebbia, the co-founder of Airbnb, who was part of Musk’s original DOGE team. Gebbia now heads the National Design Studio, a new body created by an August executive order. The president tasked Gebbia with improving the “visual presentation” of government websites. That’s a massive pivot from radical job cuts to making sure websites look good.

Meanwhile, Musk himself has reappeared in Washington. This week, he attended a White House dinner for Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, suggesting that while the chainsaw for bureaucracy may have sputtered out, the key players are definitely still involved in the capital.