Commentary Culture Investigations

Amrith Ramkumar & Georgia Wells, WSJ

Some historical details about socialist governors.

‘In recent years . . . [PEN] has more often stood at the intersection of political infighting and bad publicity.’

Editor’s Note: The Economist has issued repeated copyright claims on its interview with Elon Musk posted by social media accounts on multiple platforms (X.com, YouTube, etc.) to have the full interview taken down. A partial clip has replaced the full interview below.You come at the X trolling king, you better not miss. And unfortunately for The Economist, all of cyberspace saw its editor-in-chief get torn to shreds in a debate battle with the world’s richest man.

X.com

The Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes tried to box X owner Elon Musk in on a number of issues that she twisted into cudgels against him (DOGE cuts, likeability, Islam, etc.) during a July 23 interview. But Musk just smacked her pious line of questioning down for the leftist drivel that it was over and over again. Arguably the most entertaining part of the interview was when Beddoes sneered to Musk that “people loathe you.” The cheeky Musk just spun it back around on her and her colleagues in the media: “I don’t care. The fact that a quarter billion people follow me means a lot more people like me than don’t. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media than you realize!” Once Musk flipped the script, it was game over: “Do you realize the media is despised? Do you realize that the favorable view of journalists is like 15 percent? So the shoe is on the other foot. They hate you! They hate you far more than they hate me.” 🚨 Elon Musk just NUKED this reporter to her face in a MASTERCLASS”People loathe you!”ELON: “I don’t care. The fact that a quarter billion people follow me means a lot more people like me than don’t.””I think a lot more people hate YOU and the MEDIA than you realize!”🫳🏻🎤 pic.twitter.com/BOj528BGE8— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 23, 2026 He even repudiated Beddoes and her colleagues for their characterizations of the political “far right” writ large, which he argued were completely embellished for rage bait. Musk even took the role of the interviewer away from Beddoes and played the part himself: Tell me which of these [“far-right” policies] sound terrible: That we should have secure borders? That we should have safe cities? That we should have sensible spending? Which of those three are far-right fringe? And I would just like to admonish you and the media for the absurd characterization of the “far-right,” which is false and misleading and nonsense.Musk then turned to the camera crew: “Please keep this part in!” Talk about giving a masterclass on how to deal with pompous elitist journalists with an axe to grind!Musk wasn’t fazed by virtually any of the slanted line of questioning Beddoes attempted to skewer him with, especially as it came to her attempts to make him seem like a killer for using DOGE to gut the wasteful bloat replete throughout USAID and other government agencies. Musk listed off a few examples of the kind of stonewalling DOGE would face when asking agencies to give specifics about their intended grant recipients. Beddoes had no choice but to concede the existence of “a lot of waste,” but then she pivoted to arguing the way Musk made the cuts led to people’s deaths and “unnecessary suffering.” Musk retorted immediately, “It caused a lot of complaining.” Beddoes then tried to pin Musk with a hyperbolic hypothetical that was completely off-the-rails: “You don’t buy the idea that anybody — and to put it really crudely — any kid in Africa died because of the suddenness with which …” Musk interjected: “Zero!”A flabbergasted Beddoes then editorialized her whole question, “I just don’t think that’s right,” as if viewers care about what the interviewer thinks. But Musk didn’t hesitate to poke holes in the logic by pointing out the “tens of thousands of NGOs”  like the “$50 billion” Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that could immediately fill in the gaps theoretically left by the DOGE cuts. When Beddoes saw that Musk wasn’t buckling, she tried to shift the conversation entirely: “I don’t want to have an argument about that.” But Musk had her completely on the ropes: When funding is stopped for fraudulent organizations, do you think they’re going to say, ‘Please keep funding the fraud,’ or come up with a sympathetic story to get the funding restored? Obviously, it will be the latter. The amount of funding we’re talking about is far less than what could be supported by private foundations like the Gates Foundation or MacKenzie Bezos’s foundation. They have tens of billions of dollars and are capable of acting very quickly. If they didn’t, I would say they’re equally responsible. Zero people died because of DOGE. Zero.As NewsBusters Media Editor Bill D’Agostino suggested previously, the “Musk is a killer” narrative is as idiotic as saying he could be blamed for a kid dying in Tajikistan from toxoplasmosis because somehow we stopped paying for his Mucinex. 

On Tuesday, House Republicans on the Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency sharply questioned Anthea Hartig, Director of the National Museum of American History (NMAH). Lawmakers scrutinized whether the taxpayer-funded institution has distorted the history of America’s past.
Subcommittee Chairman Tim Burchett (R–Tenn.) contrasted the museum’s approach with the story of America as “the birth and growth of a great nation, founded on powerful ideals, in which we aim to fully achieve.” Instead, he argued, the museum presents American history principally as an “ongoing power struggle between oppressors and the oppressed.”
Five Republican committee members questioned Hartig during the hearing. The most interesting exchange came from Rep. Brandon Gill (R–TX), who zeroed in on the museum’s embrace of critical theory materials. 
Gill pressed Hartig on whether the museum considers “objectivity” to be a main goal of preserving history. After she answered in the affirmative, Gill responded, saying the museum’s MASS action toolkit cites “objectivity” as a tool of white supremacy. Considering all of this, Gill took a stab at the inconsistency, “Do you think it’s the goal of the Smithsonian to promote white supremacy culture?” 
Gill went on to ask a seemingly obvious question, “Is Mickey Mouse racist?” Hartig replied that the cartoon character is indeed rooted in “minstrelsy,” which in turn is rooted in blackface and therefore carries “obvious racial undertones.” At the end of his questioning, Gill noted “politeness” is considered part of white supremacy culture according to the museum MASS action toolkit.
The hearing followed a 162-page White House Domestic Policy Council report published on July 4 titled Saving America’s Story. The report accused the museum of elevating political activism above an accurate retelling of American history, and of straying from its founding mission: “to instill in each citizen a deepened faith in our country’s destiny as champion of individual dignity and enterprise” and “to instill in each foreign visitor admiration and respect for our ever-expanding social and technological horizons.”
Director Hartig, who has led the NMAH since 2019, frames American history as a “prime tool of social justice,” aimed to connect “research and scholarship to activism and advocacy.” She also stated she works “to reframe the traditional celebratory narrative of U.S. history for visitors,” according to the White House report. The report characterized those  statements as words of “an activist advancing an ideological agenda contradictory to the Museum’s founding purpose of fostering patriotism.”
On the semiquincentennial of America’s founding, what proves most disappointing about the NMAH is not just what it chooses to display but what it chooses to omit. During the America 250 celebration, one might reasonably expect to see exhibits honoring the early history of America. Yet there are no such exhibits, as the White House report states, “a visitor to the Museum today will find no major exhibit dedicated to America’s Founding era, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, other Founding Fathers, the Continental Congress, etc.”
Later in the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace (R–SC) questioned Hartig over the museum’s Girlhood (It’s Complicated) exhibit, asking why taxpayer dollars funded sexually explicit displays to children walking past public galleries. The exhibit specifically contained photos of transgender women and bondage attire, along with many other things clearly inappropriate for a public museum. 
What was Hartig’s defense? Why, a disclaimer sign was placed outside the door, of course.
The hearing laid bare the clear fact that Hartig, the leader of the institution entrusted to preserve our heritage, cares little for historical objectivity or celebrating our country. The question moving forward is larger than museum exhibits and wording on toolkits, but who gets to tell the story of America’s history to future generations.

On July 21, France became the first European Union country to pass a blanket social media ban for children under 15. The legislation is one of the last major measures of French President Emmanuel Macron’s term before he leaves office next year. If the bill is determined to comply with the French Constitution, then the law will come into effect at the start of the new school year in September. New under-15 accounts will be prohibited, and platforms will have four months to close existing underage accounts.
Britain announced a similar measure in June to ban social media for all under-16s, although the restrictions are not expected to take effect until spring 2027 in order to review and debate the methods of restriction. Studies to gauge the impact on children’s sleep, family life, schoolwork, and mental health play a role in the year-long delay before implementation. (RELATED: Britain Moves to Ban Children From Social Media)
Concern worldwide over the harmful effects of digital content on child development and mental health has been growing for years. Several families in France have sued TikTok over teen suicides allegedly linked to harmful content — such as suicide methods, disordered eating, and depression — on the app, and to the promotion of such content by the app’s algorithm. (RELATED: Don’t Sue the Mirror)
France is leading the proverbial pack on the continent by passing the first of these social media bans for children, but several European countries are pursuing comparable restrictions.
Many of these proposals broadly resemble a nonbinding recommendation from the European Parliament for 16 to be the default age for access, permitting access from 13 to 15 with parental consent, and barring under-13s entirely.
Countries like Spain, Greece, and Norway are planning similar under-15 or under-16 restrictions more broadly. Others such as Germany, Denmark, and Portugal are seeking explicit parental consent and controls for children 13 to 15 to access social media. A commonality across most of Europe, however, is an emphasis on making the companies themselves responsible for upholding the stricter age verification terms.
As most Gen Z-aged people who have made accounts in the last 10 years are aware, social media has long had “age limits.” In America, users generally must be 13 to open a Facebook or Instagram account. But when the extent of enforcement is a date-of-birth wheel selector, that “limit” is comparable to tissue paper in effectiveness.
So how will these European countries actually enforce their new or soon-to-be laws?
There are several possible methods, each requiring a tradeoff between accuracy and privacy. Platforms can estimate age from account activity or a facial scan, but stronger systems being considered may require a government identification card or banking credentials like a credit card to prove a user is of age. 
The European Commission has already developed a “mini-wallet” that would allow users to prove that they exceed an age threshold without disclosing their full identity. The “mini-wallet” is, however, built on the same technology as the European Digital Identity Wallets scheduled to debut across the EU by the end of 2026.
As well-intentioned as it appears, the “mini-wallet” would effectively put in place a gate to internet access, like one might use to contain a child or unruly pet. A gate designed to keep children out, but also one that every adult must pass.
Australia, which implemented the world’s first under-16 social media ban in December, demonstrates the practical difficulty of the task. Although platforms initially restricted 4.7 million accounts, a study found that more than 85 percent of surveyed under-16s continued using prohibited platforms three months later. Millions of deleted accounts can look like an impressive statistic, but they do not necessarily mean millions of children have left social media.
There are legitimate safety, developmental, and health reasons to protect children from platforms designed to capture their attention. You would be hard-pressed to find many who disagree. But the difficulty for France and other countries is determining whether they can verify children’s ages without making every adult a digitally credentialed user. 
Europe’s new digital age of majority may succeed in protecting childhood or it may not. Its effect on adult anonymity that internet users have taken for granted for decades could prove far more permanent.
READ MORE from Henry Zavalick:
Women’s International Sports Return to Biological Reality
India’s ‘Cockroaches’ March on Parliament
Wisconsin Democrats’ Gubernatorial Headache

Jeremy Portnoy, RealClearInvestigations City employees in Cary, North Carolina spent $24.2 million on their purchasing cards in 2024 and 2025, filled with arguably some of the most bizarre…

Calder McHugh, Politico

Meet the two political brawlers unleashing the AI industry’s massive cash on the midterms.
…

Rafael A. Mangual, City Journal Inside the federal and state law-enforcement operation turning one of America’s most dangerous cities around.