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
How Trump Is Inspiring Wannabe Authoritarians Everywhere

When President Joseph R. Biden Jr. convened democracy summits at the White House in 2021 and 2023, he pointedly disinvited President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, a man he had once described an “autocrat” who deserved to be driven from office by voters.
On Tuesday, President Trump offered a much rosier assessment of the Turkish president, even as protesters filled the streets following the arrest of the mayor of Istanbul, Mr. Erdogan’s chief political rival.
“A good leader,” the president said of Mr. Erdogan during a meeting of his ambassadors at the White House. He made no mention of the arrest or the protests.
Since taking office 66 days ago, Mr. Trump has turned a central precept of American diplomacy on its head. He is embracing — rather than denouncing — fellow leaders who abandon democratic principles. The longstanding bipartisan effort to bolster democratic institutions around the globe has been replaced by a president who praises leaders who move toward autocracy.
And Mr. Trump’s own actions — taking revenge against his political rivals, attacking law firms, journalists and universities, and questioning the authority of the judiciary — are offering new models for democratically elected leaders in countries like Serbia and Israel who have already shown their willingness to push the boundaries of their own institutions.
“There’s a great emboldening,” said Rosa Balfour, the Europe director for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “What Trump says reverberates strongly here. But also what the United States does not do. It does not punish or condemn any attempt to undermine rule of law or democracy. There are no repercussions.”
Jane Harman, a former member of Congress and former president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, noted that Mr. Erdogan and other leaders around the world had been “drifting away” from democratic principles for years.
In 2016, a faction in Mr. Erdogan’s government attempted a coup to overthrow him. Since then, he has tightened control of the presidency by attacking the media, political opponents, the courts and other institutions.
“This has become a very different world, but I don’t think Trump started it, and I don’t think Trump is going to end it either,” Ms. Harman said. And she noted that in at least a few places, Mr. Trump’s return to power had prompted some voters to question the authoritarian leanings of candidates and parties.
“Think Germany,” she said, referring to recent elections in the country. “The far right has risen in popularity, but it didn’t win. And the backlash to Trump might have been part of the momentum that held it back.”
Mr. Trump is not the first president to tolerate less-than-democratic actions from allies when they deemed it necessary.
Mr. Biden offered a fist-bump to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, even as he blamed him for the murder of the columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Mr. Biden also worked with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, who has increasingly cracked down on dissent in his country, and — at times — with Mr. Erdogan.
But Mr. Trump’s election has coincided with actions by elected leaders that appear to depart from the kind of democratic principles that America stood for.
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu no longer needs to contend with Mr. Biden’s opposition to a long-planned overhaul of the courts, which many Israelis view as an attempt to control and politicize the judiciary. In 2023, Mr. Biden told reporters that Mr. Netanyahu “cannot continue down this road” of judicial changes.
Now, with Mr. Trump in office, the Israeli leader faces no such pressure. This month, he fired the chief of the country’s domestic intelligence agency, a move seen as undermining its independence. Later, the cabinet approved a vote of no confidence in the country’s attorney general, prompting fresh accusations that Mr. Netanyahu is curbing the independence of the justice system, purging officials he considers disloyal.
On Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu’s allies in Parliament voted to give themselves more power over the selection of the country’s judges. The vote came after the prime minister gave a speech echoing Mr. Trump and saying that the action meant that “the deep state is in danger.”
“The U.S. is not going to put any pressure whatsoever on Netanyahu to respect the democratic institutions of his own country,” Ms. Balfour said. “Netanyahu feels that he has impunity in that respect.”
In Serbia, President Aleksandar Vucic has spent years attacking the media and other political opponents. Last month — as Mr. Trump dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development — Mr. Vucic sent police to raid organizations in his country, some of which had received money from the now largely shuttered American agency.
Authorities in Mr. Vucic’s government cited Mr. Trump’s actions in the United States as justification for moving against the organizations, including the Centre for Research, Transparency and Accountability and Civic Initiatives. They quoted Elon Musk, the multibillionaire who is running the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, who claimed, without evidence, that USAID was a “criminal organization.”
Two weeks after the raids in Serbia, Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, traveled to Belgrade, the country’s capital, to interview Mr. Vucic for his podcast. In the interview, Mr. Vucic complained that he, like the American president, is opposed by “an entire liberal establishment from Washington and New York and L.A. going against you.” He said the raids of the nongovernmental organizations were designed to root out corruption and financial mismanagement.
Mr. Trump Jr. fawned over Mr. Vucic, describing what he called “an embrace of common sense, an embrace of law and order, of a shared national sense of identity.” He criticized protesters angry about Mr. Vucic’s recent actions.
“I’m sure the media will cover them only one way,” Mr. Trump Jr. said. “And now there’s seemingly evidence that they are all tied in some form to the same left-wing actors here in America. That same propaganda machine.”
The president’s son is not the only one echoing his father’s language.
Last week, after Mr. Erdogan’s government jailed the mayor of Istanbul, one of Mr. Trump’s senior diplomatic envoys spoke positively about Turkey’s leader during an interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
“Really transformational,” Steve Witkoff said of a recent telephone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Erdogan. “There’s just a lot of good, positive news coming out of Turkey right now as a result of that conversation.”
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University, said Mr. Trump’s words and actions — and those of his surrogates — are being watched by other leaders. She said the president’s lack of condemnation of Mr. Erdogan following the arrest of the Istanbul mayor would have been noted by authoritarian-leaning presidents and prime ministers.
“The moves of Trump in this same direction,” she said, “embolden foreign leaders who know the U.S. is now an autocratic ally and there will be no consequences for repressive behavior.”
Politics
Trump nominates former Arizona attorney general for US ambassador to Serbia

President Donald Trump announced Friday he had nominated former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich to become the next U.S. ambassador to Serbia.
“Mark is a proud Veteran of the Army National Guard, and previously served as Attorney General for the Great State of Arizona,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
“As the son of refugees who fled communism, Mark will be a strong advocate for Freedom, and always put AMERICA FIRST. Congratulations Mark!”
TRUMP NOMINATES GEORGIA STATE SEN. BRANDON BEACH FOR US TREASURER
Mark Brnovich was nominated to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Serbia. (Fox News)
Brnovich served as attorney general of Arizona from 2015 to 2023.
He is married to Susan Brnovich, a U.S. District Court judge in Arizona.
Politics
Newsom calls the Democratic brand 'toxic' as he defends his podcast

SACRAMENTO — Since his podcast debuted in March, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has flummoxed Democrats who fear that the politician they considered a liberal prizefighter is turning MAGA-friendly.
The rap against “This Is Gavin Newsom,” in which the governor spoke out against trans athletes competing in women’s sports and disavowed the gender-inclusive term “Latinx,” is that he doesn’t sound like the Newsom they know at all.
“What in God’s name is going on with Gavin Newsom?” asked CNN anchor Erin Burnett, quoting a headline criticizing the podcast, during a recent segment ripping the governor’s apparent shift.
“The country is trying to figure out how he went from progressive hero and governor of the most liberal state in the country to interviewing and spending time with MAGA favorites like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk.”
The Democratic governor was also surprised, but by the response.
“I did what I said I was going to do. I mean, when I launched this, I said I was going to have, not debates with people I disagree with, I said we’re gonna have people on we disagree and agree with to have civil conversations to try to understand each other at this time of such polarization,” Newsom said in an interview with The Times on Friday. “And I said I was going to specifically meet with members of the MAGA movement. And then we did it and people were shocked.”
A common takeaway from the podcast is that Newsom is attempting to shape-shift into a moderate as he gears up to run for president in the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s disastrous 2024 election.
Newsom disputed that “exhausting” assumption, which he said others have attributed to actions for more than two decades. The governor offered his own blistering critique of his party to explain why he’s sitting down with controversial GOP figures now.
“Because our party’s getting our ass kicked,” Newsom said. “Because the Democratic Party brand is toxic. Because people don’t think we make any damn sense. They think we make noise. They don’t think we support them. You fill in the generic them. They don’t think we have their values. They think we’re elite. We talk down to people. We talk past people. They think we just think we’re smarter than other people, that we’re so judgmental and full of ourselves.”
The governor paused to say he loves his party, but “we’ve lost our way” and he wants people to know he hears it.
“I think you do that by having people you disagree with [on the podcast] without being disagreeable.”
It’s not the first time the governor has disagreed with his fellow Democrats.
As speculation mounted about whether then-President Biden was fit to run for president last summer, Newsom called the chatter from his own party “unhelpful” and “unnecessary” as he encouraged Democrats to back the president. A year earlier, he scolded the Democratic Party for its passive response to Republicans and for its lack of an offensive political playbook.
Newsom created headlines across the country in the premiere episode of his podcast when he told Kirk, a conservative activist and Trump loyalist, that allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports is “deeply unfair.” Newsom’s comments represented a clear break from progressives.
The backlash from the left was swift. Newsom was accused of deserting his core LGBTQ+ constituency and flip-flopping after old social media posts surfaced with him expressing support for the California law signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown that gave trans students more rights in public schools, including the ability to compete in sports and use bathrooms based on their gender preference.
Newsom’s position aligned with 66% of American adults, who in a Pew Research survey in February said trans athletes should be required to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth.
The governor also was criticized for suggesting, in his podcast with Kirk, that no one in his office used the term “Latinx,” a gender neutral term, to describe Latinos, despite direct quotes of the governor that prove otherwise. A Pew poll from 2024 found that only 4% of Latinos describe themselves as “Latinx.”
Eric Jaye, the chief consultant for Newsom’s 2003 mayoral campaign, said the governor is an astute politician, though he disagreed with his decision to speak out against transgender athletes.
“San Francisco has produced many extraordinary politicians — Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Willie Brown, Kamala Harris — but in terms of the ability to adapt to changing political times and climes, Gavin Newsom’s head and shoulders above all of them,” Jaye said. “He’s deeply, deeply attuned to which way the political wind is blowing and he has so far shown an extraordinary ability to navigate changing political weather.”
“Now the challenge is, the question will be, at what point does that stop seeming like someone adapted to changing times and start seeming inauthentic, if not outright fake?”
On Friday, Newsom said he understood why people might view his podcast as a departure from his liberal image, shaped largely by his groundbreaking support for gay marriage as mayor of San Francisco and as an advocate for universal healthcare.
But the governor said his politics has never fit into an “ideological prism.”
Anyone who knows him, he said, remembers when he was the “small business supervisor” in San Francisco, raging against the board for raising fees on business owners and championing “Care Not Cash,” a policy to take welfare checks from homeless people and use the savings to pay for treatment options.
“I’m open to argument,” Newsom said. “I’m interested in evidence. I have very strong values. I’m a progressive but I’m a pragmatic one, and that’s something that anyone who has followed me knows, and people that don’t, they’re learning a little bit about that now.”
Still, Newsom always has been the main architect of his public image.
A wine entrepreneur allied with the business community, he ran as a moderate to win the mayor’s office in 2003 against a Green Party candidate. “Care Not Cash” was widely panned by progressives but helped seal his victory.
When Newsom set his sights on the biggest political prize in California in the 2018 governor’s race, he ran as a progressive advocate for single-payer healthcare and pledged to build more affordable housing.
Yet even as he effused his liberal platform, Newsom couldn’t shake criticism from his opponents that his positions were a mirage.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a moderate Democrat, accused Newsom of selling “snake oil” with his support for single-payer healthcare in order to win over the nurses union and progressives.
Newsom delivered some of his campaign pledges in his first term as governor. He successfully advocated for universal preschool and state-sponsored healthcare coverage to all income-eligible Californians regardless of immigration status. He also paused death row executions.
The governor, who has a close relationship with the tech industry and counts Google founder Sergey Brin and Salesforce Chief Executive Marc Benioff as his friends, has shown more of his moderate side in his second term.
He drew criticism from truck drivers for rejecting their push to require more regulation of autonomous big rigs. He vetoed a marquee bill last year that would have required artificial intelligence developers to put safeguards on the technology. Newsom rebuffed Hollywood unions when he rejected a bill that would have allowed workers to receive unemployment benefits when on strike.
He made a show this year of saying he would veto a bill for a second time that sought to restrict the state prison system’s ability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities attempting to deport felons. He’s also rejected proposals to allow immigrants who are in the country illegally to participate in a subsidized home loan program and to allow undocumented students to work at public universities.
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said she wasn’t shocked to see Newsom appear more moderate on the podcast.
“He has always been more or less a tech bro from Northern California with the same kind of politics as we thought,” Gonzalez said.
Perhaps, she said, “He’s done playing liberal and now he’s just going to be himself.”
Steve Kawa, Newsom’s chief of staff as mayor, scoffed at the idea that Newsom has changed. He said the governor has always been interested in speaking to people on all sides of a policy idea. Politicians, like regular people, aren’t one-dimensional.
“Maybe he’s moderate on this issue,” Kawa said. “Maybe he’s progressive on this issue. I don’t think he looks at it in terms of under what column is this solution to make life better for the public and I can only be in this column.”
To criticism that he appears too comfortable talking to Bannon, a Trump campaign architect, and Kirk one day and Democrats such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and commentator Ezra Klein the next, Newsom said he meets with people he disagrees with all the time. He mentioned his 90-minute sit-down with Trump in the Oval Office.
“That’s called life,” Newsom said. “I don’t decide who my friends are on the basis of their politics. I’d never met Charlie Kirk. I’d never met Bannon, but I know people that think like them and they’re good parents and they’re good people, and I vehemently disagree with their politics and they’re Trumpers.”
The amicability he displayed in the podcast toward Republican figures whom Democrats perceive as villains doesn’t come as a surprise to people who have closely followed his career.
“He sounds evenhanded about the views of people that you would think he would find an anathema to his being. That’s because of how he is on a path of existence beyond politics and I think that’s reflected in the podcast,” said David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University.
“He’s always lived a charmed life in terms of politics, but there’s also been more to him.”
-
World1 week ago
Commission warns Alphabet and Apple they're breaking EU digital rules
-
News1 week ago
Trump’s Ending of Hunter Biden’s Security Detail Raises Questions About Who Gets Protection
-
Technology1 week ago
Streaming services keep getting more expensive: all the latest price increases
-
Sports1 week ago
The BookKeeper – Exploring Manchester City’s finances during a season of change
-
Business1 week ago
Trump Administration Lifts Ban on Sugar Company Central Romana Over Forced Labor
-
News1 week ago
NASA Astronauts Don’t Receive Overtime Pay for Space Mission But Get $5 a Day
-
Culture1 week ago
‘Can’t-miss’ Men’s NCAA Tournament games on Thursday and Friday: truTV FTW?
-
World1 week ago
Vatican says Pope Francis no longer needs mechanical help to breathe as his health improves