The real reason elites want to destroy Elon Musk



When protests erupt worldwide over an American staffing decision, it’s not outrage — it’s orchestration. And the people behind it don’t want you asking questions.

The recent wave of global protests against Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, defies logic. Demonstrators have gathered outside Tesla showrooms worldwide, setting cars on fire and destroying lithium batteries. But what exactly are they protesting?

The protests are not about environmental concerns but about control.

Policy decisions can spark domestic outrage in the United States, but why are people in Germany, Sweden, or Ireland suddenly mobilizing against Musk? He is not pushing for global war or implementing trade tariffs that would impact European consumers. His involvement in U.S. government affairs concerns federal budgeting waste, fraud, and abuse. Why would anyone overseas care about this?

Historically, large-scale protests have erupted over issues like nuclear weapons, war, and climate change. Yet, no precedent exists for international demonstrations aimed at a domestic U.S. policy decision — particularly one centered on budget efficiency. So who benefits from this manufactured outrage?

Green hypocrisy

Tesla revolutionized the electric vehicle industry, making sustainable transportation mainstream. Musk developed solar panels, battery storage, and charging infrastructure — technologies environmentalists have long championed. Yet now, the same groups that once hailed electric vehicles as essential to combating climate change are actively working to cripple Tesla.

How does burning Tesla vehicles and terrorizing EV owners advance the fight against climate change?

This contradiction reveals a deeper issue. If climate change truly presents an existential crisis, why would activists seek to dismantle a company leading the charge in clean energy? The only logical explanation is that the protests are not about environmental concerns but control.

Musk’s real ‘threat’

Elon Musk faced little controversy when he pioneered electric vehicles or launched reusable rockets. The backlash began when he became a vocal champion of free speech.

His purchase of Twitter, followed by revelations of government-backed censorship, changed how information moves through digital platforms. That shift marked the moment the outrage machine targeted him.

Opponents have resorted to labeling Musk a "fascist." But let’s examine this claim. Traditional fascism is defined by state control, forced conformity, and the suppression of dissent. Musk, on the other hand, advocates open dialogue, transparency, and reduced government interference. Calling him a fascist is not only inaccurate but also a deliberate attempt to stifle debate.

When people misuse the term "fascist," they dilute its meaning. Just as overusing the word "racist" has numbed the public to actual instances of racism, the indiscriminate application of "fascist" shields actual authoritarian behavior from scrutiny. This tactic is not about accurately describing Musk — it is about silencing him.

Who’s behind the protests?

Ordinary citizens do not spontaneously organize coordinated protests across multiple continents in response to a U.S. federal staffing decision. These demonstrations require financial backing, media support, and strategic messaging. So who benefits from damaging Tesla’s brand or silencing Musk?

We live in an era where perception is power. A viral video can ruin a reputation, and a well-crafted narrative can influence elections. If a movement can turn a climate hero into a villain simply for challenging an entrenched system, then it can manipulate almost any public discourse.

Before accepting any narrative at face value, we must ask critical questions: Do these protests help or harm the environment? Are they organic expressions of outrage, or are they carefully orchestrated? Is the term "fascist" being used to expose truth or to suppress dissent? Most importantly, are we sabotaging progress simply because we dislike one of the people leading it?

The manufactured outrage against Musk is not about policy; it is about power. And if we fail to recognize that, we risk allowing those who seek control to redefine reality itself.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

CNN Host Quickly Switches Topic After Scott Jennings Asks Panel To Name One Dem Who Is ‘More Popular’ Than Trump

'You guys keep trying to create this fantasy land'

Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power



Every country is governed by an organized elite, and every ruling class relies on a narrative that justifies its authority. Political theorist Gaetano Mosca called this a political formula — a framework that defines the legitimacy of a government. Without a radical shift in this formula, a nation's people assume their leaders must operate within the existing governmental structure.

Americans expect to be governed as a republic, with a mixed constitution that heavily favors the input of the common man. While aspects of the narrative justifying government power have remained intact, the ruling elite have fundamentally altered how the state functions.

When Democrats claim Trump threatens 'our democracy,' they really mean he threatens their administrative state.

Technocratic bureaucracy now dominates every branch of government, replacing the will of the people with the judgment of so-called experts. Donald Trump has declared war on this bureaucracy — what many call the deep state — acknowledging the extent to which the federal government has been transformed. His stance has deeply unsettled his opponents.

The entrenched elite believed their new governing model was permanently enshrined. Yet to their shock, the power of America’s foundational principles still holds enough force to challenge the system they assumed was complete. Republican presidents have come and gone, but for the first time in years, the ruling class is paralyzed by the prospect of real change.

The U.S. Constitution establishes essential ground rules, but the Founding Fathers designed it with significant flexibility. While power is divided among three branches with built-in checks and balances, the dominance of each branch has shifted throughout history. This adaptability has allowed the nation to respond to crises without requiring a formal revolution.

This flexibility ensures continuity of governance during emergencies, but it also makes it difficult for the public to recognize when a more insidious shift occurs within the state’s structure.

Some trace the origins of the administrative state to Chester A. Arthur or Woodrow Wilson, but few deny its full emergence under Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR’s New Deal created a vast bureaucracy of experts tasked with modernizing and centralizing economic and political power. The Great Depression and World War II provided the perfect justification for this transformation, and Americans — grateful for an end to both crises — barely noticed how radically their form of government had changed.

FDR’s managerial revolution still haunts the United States. Today, the country operates less like a republic and more like a web of insular, unaccountable bureaucratic agencies.

Progressives are eager to dismantle the constitutional restraints on democracy, such as the Electoral College and the Senate, while shifting power away from elected representatives and into the hands of the administrative state. The left has worked hard to dominate public opinion through institutional control and wants to maintain a direct and unobstructed link between its bureaucratic machinery and the people it seeks to govern. To the left, the checks and balances of a mixed republican constitution are archaic and inconvenient. When Democrats claim Donald Trump’s presidency threatens “our democracy,” they really mean he threatens their administrative state.

Average Americans may struggle to pinpoint exactly when or how their government changed, but they recognize that something feels fundamentally different from what they were promised. Even if most citizens today have never lived under a truly representative republic, the founding narrative remains powerful enough for Americans to see it as their rightful system of government — and to demand its return.

Democrats may cry “constitutional crisis” as Trump removes corrupt officials and empowers Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to slash bureaucracy. But voters understand that this decisive exercise of executive power aligns far more with the original mixed republican system than anything the administrative state has imposed. Trump’s executive orders may threaten their “democracy,” but bold action is essential to restore the republic’s promises.

The left obscured its quiet revolution by replacing the constitutional republic with an unaccountable administrative state. Believing this transformation to be permanent, progressives even exported the model as a blueprint for governance across the Western world. In countries like the United Kingdom and Germany, technocratic governments now arrest their own citizens for criticizing failed policies, all in the name of defending “democracy.”

But in the United States, the republic’s legacy remains too strong to erase. Despite being ground zero for the technocratic revolution, America is also poised to lead its rejection.

Trump campaigned on Making America Great Again, and the key to fulfilling that promise is dismantling the bureaucratic behemoth that has strangled American ingenuity, productivity, and liberty. The republic’s narrative still beats in the heart of the nation, and by pledging to restore it, Trump has rallied his supporters to the difficult but necessary task of reversing the left’s technocratic revolution.

Trump supercharges DOGE with new executive order, sets stage for 'large-scale' layoffs



President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday setting the stage for "large-scale" layoffs and requiring federal agencies to further aid the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency with the governmental streamlining process, further empowering the Elon Musk-led outfit.

The order titled "Implementing the president's 'Department of Government Efficiency' workforce optimization initiative" builds on Trump's Jan. 20 order establishing the DOGE and requires federal agency heads to make "preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law, and to separate from Federal service temporary employees and re-employed annuitants working in areas that will likely be subject to the RIFs."

In the order, Trump tasked Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought with producing a master plan outlining how to reduce the federal bureaucracy through "efficiency improvements and attrition." The plan must require that each agency can hire only one employee for every four employees kicked to the curb — a ratio that won't apply to jobs related to immigration, public safety, or law enforcement.

Agency heads must in turn develop hiring plans in consultation with the DOGE team leader assigned to their agency, ensuring the strategic and timely placement of new career appointment hires as well as continued absences in positions the DOGE figures better left unmanned.

Trump further made clear that offices that "perform functions not mandated by statute or other law," especially those surviving offices that engage in DEI initiatives, should be prioritized for house cleaning.

'It's just something we've got to fix.'

Agency heads are permitted under the order to exempt any position deemed essential to meeting the nation's security or public safety responsibilities.

The stated purpose of the order is to get the ball rolling on a "critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy" in the interest of "eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity" and empowering the American people.

According to the Washington Post, by adhering to Trump's hiring-firing ratio and eliminating 25% of federal employees, the administration could cut the overall budget by roughly 1%.

Elon Musk, present for Trump's signing of the order, noted after interruptions from his young son, "You cannot have an autonomous federal bureaucracy. You have to have one that is responsive to the people. That is the whole point of a democracy."

"We had this unelected fourth unconstitutional branch of government, which is the bureaucracy, which has in a lot of ways currently more power than any elected representative," continued Musk. "It's just something we've got to fix."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Electric dreams become a nightmare for Stellantis dealers



The destructive tenure of Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares has come to an abrupt but welcome end. Tavares, who had led the auto manufacturer since the 2021 merger that unified brands such as Fiat, Dodge, Jeep, Peugeot, Citroën, and Alfa Romeo, leaves a company grappling with severe challenges. Stellantis faces a sales slump, inventory surpluses, widespread layoffs, labor unrest, a dealer backlash, and a troubled push toward electric vehicles — all symptoms of a deepening crisis.

Just 10 months ago, Stellantis announced a $39 million compensation package for Tavares, making him the highest-paid auto executive in the world. This marked a 56% increase from his previous earnings. When questioned about his pay, Tavares told reporters, “Ninety percent of my salary is determined by the results of the company, so this proves that the company's results are apparently not too bad.”

Tavares failed to serve his company, shareholders, customers, or franchised dealers. Instead, he served two masters: himself and the globalist eco-bureaucracy.

U.S. auto dealers, angered by the company’s struggles, have directly linked its crisis to Tavares’ shoddy leadership. They accuse him of making short-sighted decisions that inflicted long-term damage on the company while ensuring significant financial gains for himself in the short term.

Under Tavares’ leadership, Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep dealers in the United States have struggled with an overwhelming surplus of unsold inventory. Dealers have criticized the inventory as overpriced compared to competitors, compounded by a stale lineup with new models still years away. The company discontinued popular gasoline-powered vehicles, leaving gaps in the product lineup. Rather than lowering prices or offering incentives to clear dealer lots, Stellantis chose to cut production and lay off employees, worsening the situation.

The company’s third-quarter financial results this year were disastrous, marking a near-unprecedented decline outside of an economic crisis or major disaster. Global vehicle sales dropped 20% compared to the same period in 2023 while U.S. sales fell 36%, plummeting from 470,000 units to fewer than 300,000. Revenue plunged 27% year over year. In response, Stellantis slashed production, delivering 170,000 fewer units to dealers yet failing to resolve the glut of aging inventory still clogging dealer lots.

The EV bubble bursts

Stellantis’ third-quarter sales collapse this year is even more striking when compared to the second quarter. Revenue in Q3 fell to $36 billion, a sharp 23% decline from the $47 billion reported in Q2. Sales effectively collapsed during the summer, signaling a rapid downturn for the automaker.

One key factor behind Stellantis’ limited and outdated product lineup was Tavares’ unwavering commitment to an electric vehicle future. Several high-volume, gasoline-powered models were discontinued to make way for electric replacements that are still years away.

For example, the Chrysler 300 was phased out with plans for an electric successor in 2026, leaving dealers without a comparable product to sell in the interim. Similarly, the Dodge Charger and Challenger were discontinued in 2023 to make room for a future electric Charger, further shrinking the lineup. With the EV transition faltering, dealers now face an uncertain future and a glaring lack of viable products.

Amid this upheaval, Stellantis maintained luxury car pricing, all while working to slash labor costs by shifting production and labor costs to low-wage workers outside of Europe and the United States. There have been near constant announcements of layoffs in the past year, including that of 400 engineers at Stellantis’ U.S. headquarters who were let go and replaced by engineers in Brazil and Mexico at dramatically lower salaries.

As Europe’s electric vehicle bubble burst and consumers increasingly rejected EVs, especially with the decline of government incentives, Stellantis dealers called for relief from the strict EV mandates imposed on the industry. But Tavares refused to intervene.

In fact, Tavares took the opposite approach. While other automakers, including Volkswagen and Renault, urged European regulators to relax emissions mandates meant to drive the EV transition, Tavares redoubled Stellantis’ commitment to the unobtainable goals.

“Electrification is a high-cost transition, and only those with the financial strength and vision to adapt quickly will survive in this environment,” he said, signaling his belief that the company could outlast its competitors.

With Carlos Tavares unwilling to fight for Stellantis as the EV bubble burst, its European dealers were forced to take matters into their own hands. They appealed directly to the European Commission for relief from the impending 2025 emissions restrictions.

Dealers revolt, shareholders suffer

Meanwhile, in the United States, Stellantis’ National Dealer Council released a scathing open letter to Tavares just weeks earlier. The letter aimed to “sound an alarm” to investors, employees, and Stellantis board members about the CEO’s “reckless short-term decision making.” The council accused Tavares of causing the “rapid degradation” of the Dodge, Ram, Chrysler, and Jeep brands and overseeing a significant collapse in market share.

For over two years now, the U.S. Stellantis National Dealer Council has been sounding this alarm to your U.S. executive team, warning them that the course you had set for Stellantis in the U.S. was going to be a disaster in the long run. A disaster not just for us, but for everyone involved — and now, that disaster has arrived. In 2023, you engineered a record year of profitability for Stellantis, earning you the title of the highest-compensated automotive CEO. You personally earned a record amount of almost forty million dollars that year. Unfortunately, the engineering and structuring of that year have led us to exactly where we told your executives we would be today.

The bill has come due for the decisions that you made to engineer those profits in 2023, and your attempt at a soft landing on the backs of your employees, your dealers, and your suppliers is frankly just wrong. We did not create this problem, the federal government did not create this problem, the UAW did not create this problem, and your employees did not create this problem — you created this problem.

With Tavares’ departure, Stellantis has an opportunity to begin a rescue effort, though at this stage, it may be more of a salvage operation.

Glenn Beck recently wrote about the growing wave of anti-institutional anger, warning for years that it could erupt into chaos. Tavares’ extraordinary self-awarded compensation, approved by the board despite actions that weakened a global industrial giant, will only fuel that rage.

Tavares failed to serve his company, shareholders, customers, or franchised dealers. Instead, he served two masters: himself and the globalist eco-bureaucracy that seems content to watch Stellantis collapse as a manufacturer of gasoline-powered vehicles.

To maintain both civil and economic order, investors and corporate boards must take responsibility for preventing further destruction of institutions like Stellantis. Greedy and self-serving leaders, such as Carlos Tavares, cannot be allowed to undermine companies at the expense of all other stakeholders.

FACT CHECK: Threads Post Falsely Links Nissan Layoffs To Expected Tariffs

A post shared on Threads claims Nissan has announced 9,000 layoffs in Tennessee to “avoid severe losses due to expected tariffs.”   View on Threads   Verdict: False The claim is false. While Nissan has announced 9,000 layoffs, the move is not connected to potential tariffs, according to a press release from the company. Fact […]

FACT CHEK: Is This A Real Video Of A Macy’s Employee Getting Fired?

A statement from the company on their official X account denied the incident was real

Southern Poverty Law Center has 'gutted its staff' despite nearly $1 billion in reserves, union says



The Southern Poverty Law Center has "gutted its staff" despite nearly $1 billion in reserves, its union said.

The SPLC Union on Wednesday posted the following to X: "Today, @splcenter — an organization with nearly a billion dollars in reserves, given an F rating by CharityWatch for 'hoarding' donations — gutted its staff by a quarter."

'The organization has sometimes been criticized for its aggressive fundraising tactics. In 2022, the organization reported having $711 million in assets and receiving more than $100 million in donations each year since 2019.'

The union added, "SPLC’s decision has a catastrophic impact on the organization’s work in support of immigrants seeking justice and its mission to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance human rights through support of educators."

The union added a dozen subsequent posts on X. One of them noted, "More than 60 SPLC Union members, including five Union stewards and our Union Chair, were informed that they would be losing their jobs. We are devastated for our Union and for our colleagues."

Another said, "The layoffs of all 16 staff in the Southern Immigrant Freedom Initiative and its office closure will decimate free legal representation to detained immigrants across Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi." Another added, "The dismantling of the full Immigrant Justice team ends SPLC’s decade-long commitment to the rights of migrant workers and the deep coalition work to advocate for immigrants’ rights and decriminalize migration across the Southeast."

The Associated Press said the SPLC didn't confirm how many staffers were laid off but issued a statement saying it is "undergoing an organizational restructuring,” which will result in a staff reduction.

More from the AP:

The Montgomery, Alabama-based law center was founded in 1971 as a watchdog for minorities and the underprivileged. A decade later, the organization won a $7 million judgment against the United Klans of America on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son was killed by KKK members in Mobile. Over the years, the organization has advocated for expanding voting access, protections for immigrants and equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community. It has also maintained a list of extremist organizations.

The organization has sometimes been criticized for its aggressive fundraising tactics. In 2022, the organization reported having $711 million in assets and receiving more than $100 million in donations each year since 2019.

Employees of Southern Poverty Law Center voted to unionize in 2019. The employees voted to join the Washington-Baltimore News Guild.

Anything else?

Mainstream news outlets frequently cite the SPLC as the authority on what organizations are hate groups.

Fox News said the SPLC had to apologize after calling neurosurgeon and former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson an "extremist." The SPLC recently called Moms for Liberty an "anti-government extremist group."

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), in a scathing 2023 opinion piece, suggested that the SPLC's corruption and terror-links disqualified lawyer Nancy Abudu from serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Joe Biden nominated Abudu, who supervised and strategized SPLC litigation since 2019. She began serving on the Eleventh Circuit on June 1, 2023.

An SPLC attorney was arrested for domestic terrorism in a group of 23 who allegedly violently attacked the future site of an Atlanta police training facility last year.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Womp, womp! Massive layoffs hit Media Matters after Elon Musk lawsuit



Media Matters has solely existed to be a watchdog against the right for years, often seeking to ruin the lives of conservatives via cancel culture.

Now, the media company is having massive layoffs after Elon Musk brought it to court in November — and Lauren Chen is not above celebrating.

“They are a leftist watchdog organization that basically just exists to smear right-wing figures. And to be clear, the problem here is not that Media Matters advances, like, leftist talking points kind of, like, the Young Turks. No, Media Matters is really in a totally separate category,” Chen says.

“It seems like all they do is sit around consuming right-wing content, looking for sound bites or unflattering quotes to take out of context in the hopes of canceling right-wing figures,” she continues, adding, “and I therefore hate them.”

Last year, Media Matters messed up when it attempted to smear the wrong person and ended up getting sued by Musk. Media Matters was accused of manufacturing a report to show advertisers’ posts alongside neo-Nazi and white nationalist posts in order to “drive advertisers from the platform and destroy X corp.”

“They were essentially trying to play the algorithm to get really unflattering screenshots for X, even though for the average user this is not at all what would appear if you were using the platform,” Chen explains.

The media company has just now been forced to fire at least a dozen staffers.

“We’re confronting a legal assault on multiple fronts, and given how rapidly the media landscape is shifting, we need to be extremely intentional about how we allocate resources in order to stay effective,” the president of Media Matters, Angelo Carusone, said in a statement.

“For right-wing content creators like myself, that means there’s going to be fewer people out there looking to basically quote mine you in the hopes of destroying your career,” Chen says happily.


Want more from Lauren Chen?

To enjoy more of Lauren’s pro-liberty, pro-logic, and pro-market commentary on social and political issues, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Journalist exposes media outlet paying millions to US companies to publish propaganda disguised as news articles



It appears that major U.S. media outlets have been receiving millions of dollars from China Daily, a state-owned Chinese media company.

All China Daily has asked for in exchange for the millions is that these American publications publish Chinese propaganda disguised as news articles.

According to Drew Holden from the Washington Free Beacon, China Daily is “a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party.”

“It’s fully owned and operated by the CCP,” Holden tells Stu Burguiere, revealing that media outlets were getting paid “to include puff pieces about the Chinese regime” and “to talk about U.S.-China relations” in “ways that weren’t connected to the facts at all.”

The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal had all been a part of this before severing their connections with China Daily when news got out about their involvement in 2021.

Time magazine has also partnered up with China Daily, receiving $3.5 million from the CCP-operated company since 2021.

Time created a segment called “China Watch,” which is a segment on Time’s website that runs advertisements that Holden says “really just look like bad news articles under the Time magazine logo.”

“They’re all gonna stop and stop taking the Chinese propaganda money. Right, Drew?” Stu Burguiere asks, noting that it would make sense now that they’ve been caught.

“You would think,” Holden laughs.

“Straight propaganda from our geopolitical nemesis in China being printed underneath their logos to be distributed to their readership, and they’re taking a ton of money to do this,” he adds.


Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.