Politics
Tesla attacks mark troubling twist in political violence as Musk divides America
There were broad expectations that the widening political divides in America following Donald Trump’s second presidential victory would explode.
But few could have predicted the flash point would be electric cars.
Teslas have been set ablaze with Molotov cocktails, riddled with bullets and defaced with swastikas. Doors and windows at once pristine luxury electric vehicle showrooms are now scrawled with profanity and Nazi symbols.
Teslas, once the darling of alternative energy advocates, are now the unlikely target of political violence. Experts say while the singling out of individual vehicles is unusual, activists focusing ire on a corporation has a long history in America.
No one has been seriously hurt in the incidents, but they have heightened alarm from both law enforcement officials and experts in political extremism about where this is heading.
“We have a continuum of activity, some of which we rightfully tolerate, such as boisterous and passionate protests,” said Brian Levin, a professor emeritus at Cal State San Bernardino and an expert on extremism. “But now we’re getting to another level of this kind of directed arson and violence, which, to be sure, has an intimidation effect.”
The Tesla attacks have been scattered and do not appear to be coordinated. But the one thing they seem to have in common is disdain for Tesla owner Elon Musk and his efforts to fire federal workers and shrink the size of government.
After Las Vegas was hit with a spate of Tesla attacks, Spencer Evans, FBI special agent in charge of the Las Vegas bureau, issued a warning to would-be political vandals.
“Specifically to those who might think that something like this is justifiable or potentially even admirable, we want to let you know it’s a federal crime,” he said. “We will come after you, we will find you, and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. I encourage anyone that’s considering something like this to seriously reconsider.”
This isn’t the first time corporations or even car brands have been the target of political protest, and sometimes vandalism.
Protests over Energy Transfer’s construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota drew national attention and thousands of people to months-long encampments in 2016 and 2017. A jury this week awarded damages of more than $660 million to the pipeline company in its lawsuit against Greenpeace over the environmental organization’s role in the protests.
In 2003, activists set fire to a Chevrolet dealership and destroyed or defaced dozens of Hummers and other sport utility vehicles, scrawling many with the word “polluter.” Earth Liberation Front, an association of militant environmentalists, claimed responsibility for the attacks at the time, saying it had been intended to take the profit motive away from the companies responsible for pollution.
The same group was suspected to be involved in a fire that tore through a construction site in San Diego that same year, according to a Times report from 2003.
“Over the last decade ideologically motivated militants from across a spectrum, as well as some unstable and idiosyncratic types, have targeted their broadening attacks not only against traditional, governmental, communication and academic enterprises, but also increasingly against powerful corporate or defense industry targets who they regard as political co-conspirators of their adversaries,” Levin said.
There have been growing concerns about political extremism in the United States in the Trump era, especially after rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying election results.
On his first day in office, President Trump granted sweeping pardons or commutations to more than 1,500 people convicted of Jan. 6 offenses. The pardons and now the efforts to protect Tesla have sent out a conflicting message about how the Trump administration will handle targeted political violence, Levin said.
“You can’t have it both ways,” Levin said. “If the Trump administration is going to talk the talk, they need to walk the walk with respect to targeted violence. You can’t just pick and choose which particular ideology you prefer when it comes to having a legal response to acts of targeted violence.”
Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi labeled the attacks on Tesla dealerships this week as “nothing short of domestic terrorism.”
Bondi promised to impose severe consequences on those involved in the Tesla attacks, including “those operating behind the scenes to coordinate and fund these crimes.”
While domestic terrorism is defined in federal law, it’s not an official criminal statute that carries a specific penalty. Those arrested in the attacks have so far been charged under other federal statutes that can carry significant jail time.
Under federal statutes, conspiracy and malicious destruction counts each carry a mandatory minimum of five years in prison and a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison. A count of possession of an unregistered destructive device is punishable by up to 10 years.
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, said applying terror charges to Tesla attacks is possible, but it’s not how terrorism charges have been filed in the past.
“Americans have not been charged with terrorism because it can be difficult to get inside a criminal defendant’s head and prove why they committed the violent act. It’s much easier if they are a member of or have pledged allegiance to a foreign terrorist organization,” Rahmani said.
It’s not just showrooms that are on alert. A website, Dogequest, allegedly published the personal information of Tesla owners across the United States, raising privacy and safety concerns for those who own the electric vehicles. The website has since been taken down.
Musk has fired back on his social media platform, X, doling out blame for the attacks on Democrats and others.
“Has there ever been such a level of coordinated violence against a peaceful company? I understand not wanting to buy a product, but this is extreme arson and destruction!” Musk wrote on X.
In San Diego, a person wearing dark clothing and a red bandanna around their face sneaked onto the Tesla showroom in Encinitas before 2 a.m. Monday and spray-painted swastikas on eight vehicles and defaced the dealership’s windows with profanity, said San Diego County Sheriff Sgt. Christie Ramirez.
Ramirez said investigators have not made any arrests.
Several dealerships have been defaced with Nazi symbols — an apparent response to the arm gesture Musk made while speaking at a rally celebrating Trump’s inauguration in January. Musk denies the gesture was a Nazi salute.
In Las Vegas, the FBI and Las Vegas metro police launched an investigation this week after vandals threw Molotov cocktails and fired at least three rounds into vehicles at a Tesla Collision Center just a few miles from the Vegas Strip around 2:45 a.m. Tuesday, authorities said.
Several Teslas were engulfed in flames and the word “resist” was spray-painted on building doors, said Assistant Sheriff Dori Koren. A 911 caller reported seeing a person wearing black clothing setting multiple electric vehicles on fire.
At least five Tesla vehicles were damaged in the incident, including two fully engulfed by fire, authorities said.
The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are investigating a similar incident in Kansas City, Mo., where two Cybertrucks were set ablaze early Tuesday. Authorities say so far there is no connection to the Las Vegas attack.
There have been at least half a dozen similar acts of vandalism at Tesla showrooms across the country in the past several months.
On March 2, someone scrawled the words “NO Musk” in red spray paint on the windows of a Tesla dealership in Owings Mills, Md. A day later, seven Tesla charging stations were set on fire in Littleton, Mass.
In Tigard, Ore., police are investigating after someone opened fire at a Tesla dealership twice in a span of about a week. In the first incident, which occurred March 6, someone fired at least seven rounds — damaging three cars and shattering windows. One bullet went through an office wall and into a computer monitor, according to police.
“Fortunately, this happened overnight when the property was unoccupied,” authorities wrote in a news release.
In Seattle, four Cybertrucks that were parked in a Tesla lot were set ablaze on March 9. In Dedham, Mass., three Teslas were spray-painted with graffiti and their tires were slashed on March 11, police said.
In Lynnwood, Wash., someone spray-painted red swastikas on Cybertrucks that were parked at a Tesla center waiting to be serviced.
Many of the investigations remain ongoing, but at least four people have been charged after allegedly destroying Tesla property.
Adam Matthew Lansky, 41, of Salem, Ore., has been charged federally with illegally possessing an unregistered destructive device after authorities say he allegedly tried to destroy Teslas at a local dealership with Molotov cocktails. Lansky also allegedly fired several rounds into a building and a vehicle at the dealership, according to court records.
In Loveland, Colo., two people have been arrested after attacks on a Tesla dealership. Cooper Jo Frederick, 24, of Fort Collins was charged with using and possessing an explosive, second-degree arson, criminal mischief and attempted criminal felony after police say an incendiary device was ignited and thrown at a Tesla building, landing between two vehicles.
Lucy Grace Nelson, 42, of Lyons, Colo., was charged with a count of malicious destruction of property for allegedly lighting a fire near a Cybertruck at the dealership and writing “Nazi” on a dealership sign, according to court records.
Daniel Clarke-Pounder, 24, of South Carolina was also charged this month with arson involving property used for interstate commerce after prosecutors allege he spray-painted “F— Trump” and “Long Live Ukraine” in a parking spot used for people charging their vehicles.
Authorities allege he pulled out five Molotov cocktails and threw them at the chargers, damaging the devices. He faces up to 20 years in prison, if convicted, according to prosecutors.
Separately from the violence, peaceful protesters have mobilized around the country at Tesla dealerships.
A group of women calling themselves the “Grandma Brigade” gathered outside the Tesla showroom and service center on Pullman Street in Costa Mesa this month to speak out against Musk’s involvement in the federal government.
“Maybe if we hit back economically we’ll be able to show that the United States can’t be bought for a few million dollars from a rich man,” said Debbie Marsteller, one of the members of the group.
But Marsteller was shocked by the vandalism others have unleashed on the dealerships.
“People putting Nazi swastikas on Tesla cars … it’s absurd to me,” she said. “It doesn’t help our cause.”
Politics
Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
Politics
Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
Politics
Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Hawaii55 seconds agoUniversity of Hawaii leaves Spectrum Sports for free over-the-air broadcasts
-
Idaho57 seconds agoIdaho water officials warn thousands of users about potential reductions amid historic drought
-
Illinois13 minutes agoIllinois lawmakers approve statewide regulations for electric bikes, scooters, skateboards
-
Indiana16 minutes ago
Kelsey Mitchell eclipses 5,000 career points in Fever victory.
-
Iowa21 minutes agoDoctor fights sanctions, saying he’ll be ‘run out of practice’ by Iowa board
-
Kentucky31 minutes agoKentucky sees improvement in drought conditions
-
Louisiana36 minutes agoLouisiana Tech launches Center for Literacy and Learning to support students, educators
-
Maine43 minutes ago
Pilots aboard hydrogen balloon are attempting to cross Atlantic Ocean from Maine