Politics
Elon Musk’s Use of X Mimics Hearst’s and Ford’s Manipulation of Media
An entrepreneur who revolutionized the automobile business decides he now needs to change how the world thinks, so he buys a media property to use as a megaphone. His rants validate many people’s worst impulses while also encouraging enemies of democracy around the world.
This sounds like Elon Musk and his social media site X in 2025, but it was also Henry Ford and his paper, The Dearborn Independent, in the 1920s. Ford, the inventor of the Model T, bought a suburban weekly and remade it to push his antisemitic views. The Dearborn Independent published a long-running series called “The International Jew,” which blamed Jews for the world’s ills, and publicized “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a hoax document. The Nazis gave Ford a medal.
Ford was perhaps the most blatant example in a long tradition of moguls who bought media platforms and then used them to promote odious views. These tycoons often used the latest in technology to reach the widest audience, whether it was high-speed newspaper presses or, in Ford’s case, his network of car dealerships.
Drive off in your new Model T and there would be The Dearborn Independent on the seat. Newspapers at the time were local businesses. With the dealerships, The Dearborn Independent became one of the highest-circulated papers in the country, printing more than 750,000 copies of each issue at its peak.
The biggest difference between Ford and other media titans like Rupert Murdoch was that the latter generally promoted their views by hiring like-minded editors and anchors. The Dearborn Independent announced on its cover that it was the “Ford International Weekly,” and it included a full-page editorial signed by Ford.
Mr. Musk’s actions signal a return to Ford’s personal approach. The Tesla and SpaceX billionaire has enthusiastically posted, reposted and endorsed incorrect or inflammatory claims on X that Social Security is fraudulent, that the Democrats are importing immigrants to win elections and that the federal judges who are ruling against the Trump administration should be impeached.
There are plenty of precedents for what Mr. Musk is doing with X. But he has taken the process to a level unimaginable even a short time ago. The site says he has 220 million followers, an assertion impossible to verify. Even if it is only a fraction of that number, X has been optimized to blast its owner’s posts as widely as possible. People see them and hear about them.
Mr. Musk’s $44 billion purchase of what was then Twitter in 2022 at first seemed to be a mistake, even to him. Then it was perceived as a billionaire’s toy. In last year’s election, it became a weapon. He used his political views to form an alliance with Donald J. Trump, which he then leveraged to put himself into the government expressly to shut down as much of it as possible.
The repercussions are still unfolding. But for Mr. Musk, it was a clear victory. In the name of government efficiency, agencies fired regulators who were in a position to oversee his empire. Mr. Musk now has a much freer hand with his cars and rockets. (An X spokesman did not provide a comment.)
“This is like nothing we’ve ever seen,” said Rick Perlstein, author of a four-volume chronicle of modern American conservatism. Noting Mr. Musk’s frequent use of memes and images, the historian added: “It’s the politics of the nervous system, not the higher functions of the brain. There’s no argument, just fear mongering.”
Moguls in the United States and Britain have owned media with the purpose of exerting influence since the creation of the modern newspaper in the late 19th century. During World War I, Viscount Northcliffe of Britain controlled roughly 40 percent of the morning circulation and 45 percent of the evening circulation there. His properties included The Daily Mail, read by the working class, and The Times, read by the elites.
The viscount, whose name was Alfred Harmsworth, played a crucial role in deposing Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in December 1916. Winston Churchill wrote that the press baron “aspired to exercise a commanding influence on events.” Viscount Northcliffe’s influence on the war was so great that the Germans sent warships to assassinate him in 1917, shelling his seaside home.
In the United States, the control of the media was often more of a local phenomenon. In West Texas in the early 1960s, the ultraconservative Whittenburg family owned The Amarillo Daily News, the NBC television station and the dominant radio station. There were few competing voices.
“If you feed people a far-right media diet, you’ll end up with a population almost exclusively on the far right,” said Jeff Roche, a historian who wrote “The Conservative Frontier,” a forthcoming study of the politics of the region. “Amarillo became the most right-wing city in America.”
“Media ownership and political influence have gone hand in hand since the earliest days of the newspaper industry,” said Simon Potter, a professor of modern history at the University of Bristol who studies mass media. “For just as long, people have worried about this intimate relationship between the media and politics — does it really serve the public interest?”
Behind that question is another: Does their megaphone really give them power, or is it shouting into a void? An American forerunner of Mr. Musk — William Randolph Hearst — provides an answer. Hearst, the owner of the upstart New York Journal, sent correspondents to Cuba in 1897 to cover a war with Spain. His interests were less humanitarian than promotional. He was in a circulation war.
One version of how that story played out showed Hearst as an all-powerful media magnate:
The Journal correspondents discovered there was no war. “Everything is quiet,” Frederic Remington, the paper’s illustrator, cabled Hearst. “There will be no war.” They wanted to leave.
Hearst replied: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” He then agitated in his papers for the war that President William McKinley in short order began. It liberated Cuba and acquired for the United States prized parts of the Spanish empire.
The story was first published in a book by a colleague of Hearst’s named James Creelman and later immortalized in Orson Welles’s “Citizen Kane.” It has been thoroughly debunked over the years. There was no evidence that Hearst ever said he would supply a war. The correspondents found plenty to illustrate. But the anecdote persisted because it showed a mogul so powerful that he could make wars out of nothing.
When Hearst tried to move on from his wartime endeavors to advance his own political career, he stumbled. He secured a seat in the House of Representatives in 1902, but bids to become the mayor of New York faltered twice. He lost a 1906 campaign for New York governor, too.
David Nasaw, who wrote “The Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst,” thinks Mr. Musk’s use of X to rally supporters is as illusory as Hearst’s supposed creation of a war.
“I haven’t seen anywhere that Twitter gets out the MAGA vote,” he said.
Hearst, in Mr. Nasaw’s view, reflected the sentiments of his readers rather than leading them. But the historian agreed that something new was going on with Mr. Musk. Hearst, Ford, even Viscount Northcliffe and the other British press lords before World War II, all had something in common that ultimately limited them.
“They were outside the room, screaming,” Mr. Nasaw said. “Twitter was important for Musk but only to get him inside the room, into the government. He’s unique in being both inside and outside with no constraints on his behavior. There’s never been anything quite like that.”
Tesla sales are plunging. Hearst and Ford could have warned Mr. Musk: Courting controversy with hateful views is bad for your reputation and usually bad for your business, too.
Ford was sued for libel over The Dearborn Independent and became the subject of boycotts. He closed the paper in 1927, although he did not repent his views. A stain lingered.
Hearst went up against President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, putting his anti-Roosevelt screeds on the front page of his papers. As the editorials became increasingly abusive, readers had to choose: Whom are we going to support, the president or the publisher?
“They chose Roosevelt,” Mr. Nasaw said. “Which meant Hearst eventually destroyed himself and his newspapers.”
Politics
Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
transcript
transcript
Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.
-
“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”
By Shawn Paik
March 5, 2026
Politics
DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.
“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.
“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”
Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)
Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”
“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”
“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”
‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING
Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.
Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”
However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”
Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.
Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business.
WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS
Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)
“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”
The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.
“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.
DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS
Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.
Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available.
Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”
“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said.
“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”
KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3
The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first. (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)
Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.
A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself.
“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”
The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”
“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.
“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”
Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.
Politics
Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.
The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.
In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.
The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.
“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.
Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.
Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.
“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.
Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.
“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.
Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.
The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.
“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”
Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.
GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.
In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.
In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Wisconsin3 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Maryland4 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida4 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Oregon6 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling