| Elon Musk spent nearly $300 million to get Donald Trump and Republicans elected in 2024, but given subsequent events, this appears to have been a bargain for the world’s richest man. Musk is wealthier than ever, his companies have benefited from lucrative government contracts and policy changes, and while he was running DOGE, he was given free rein to trash the federal government and pursue his dream of halting life-saving aid to millions of the most vulnerable and desperate people on the planet. |
| Evidently, this was not enough for either Musk or Trump. |
| On Thursday, the Trump Justice Department announced that it had filed an application to intervene in court proceedings in the European Union on behalf of Musk. The objective of the application is to throw out approximately $140 million in fines levied last year against Musk and his social media platform X for violating the EU’s Digital Services Act. |
| It’s a two-for-one combo: a bad position on the merits, and also a politically unhelpful one that will further antagonize the EU. |
| The EU’s fine was based on an investigation by the European Commission that found that X had breached transparency obligations under the DSA by using “deceptive design practices” for its blue checkmark, failing to maintain an appropriate ad repository, and preventing researchers from accessing public data. The amount of money at stake is relatively insignificant for Musk, but he and the Trump administration have sought to cast the EU’s actions as an affront to American free speech principles and innovation. |
| The administration has not yet released the application (I asked the DOJ for a copy but got no response), but based on the DOJ’s press release, the arguments are highly unpersuasive and borderline frivolous. |
| The DOJ’s first argument is that X is somehow not operating in the EU because it is physically based in the U.S. According to a quote attributed to Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ’s Civil Division, “The European Commission inappropriately attempted to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies not present or operating within its jurisdiction.” |
| This is a basic category error that also happens to be at odds with U.S. law. |
| A company does not have to be physically “present” somewhere in order to operate within the jurisdiction and be subject to that jurisdiction’s laws. The U.S. — myself personally included — routinely pursues legal actions against foreign individuals and companies whose business practices have adversely affected Americans. There are limits that constrain the “extraterritorial application” of federal law, but there is no blanket prohibition against it, nor would we want one. |
| The DOJ also justifies its intervention by citing “the implications for U.S.-EU relations,” but this is entirely backwards. The Trump administration would never tolerate the EU coming into the U.S. court system to try to thwart a Justice Department enforcement action against a European company, and the intervention is sure to further antagonize our European allies at a time when it has already significantly strained those relations. |
| Perhaps most galling is the DOJ’s claim that “the United States has a clear interest in ensuring that the effect of any judgment concerning the Commission’s Decision is consistent with how territorial jurisdiction is generally understood in international law.” |
| This is an administration that does not care about international law unless it can try to invoke it to benefit itself. |
| The administration’s capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela was illegal under international law. The administration’s ongoing military campaign against alleged drug traffickers in international waters is illegal under international law. The administration’s ongoing war in Iran — also illegal under international law. |
| On top of all that, the administration is engaged in an aggressive and wide-ranging effort to fatally cripple the International Criminal Court. This is a legitimate multi-governmental body, but the U.S. is doing everything it can to destroy it. |
| Amid all this, we are claiming to be up in arms because the EU fined Musk’s social media platform. |
| The position is absurd on its face, it’s a waste of taxpayer money, and it will further compromise international cooperation on law enforcement matters that serve U.S. interests — all to benefit the world’s richest man. |
| It’s no wonder that Musk is spending another $100 million to support the Republican Party in the midterms. |
.jpg)
