DOJ Is Dropping a Case Against Elon Musk; Here's What No One's Telling You

SpaceX already admitted it was refusing hire refugees and asylees (which is illegal)

This is a TFN Bonus Story. If you only want to receive the weekday-morning newsletter, you can adjust your TFN settings here.

Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt, left, listens respectfully as Elon Musk says wrong things. (Screengrab / Newsmax video.)

You may have heard that the Justice Department just got judicial approval to file for dismissal of its case against one of Elon Musks’s companies, SpaceX.

It’s obviously suspicious on its face when a new attorney general, Pam Bondi, comes in pledging loyalty not to the Constitution but to the president who appointed her and almost immediately moves to drop a case against the president’s most prominent advisor. But there’s more to this case that isn’t being reported at all.

The case had been paused as SpaceX pursued a constitutional challenge unrelated to the merits of the case. Then, on Thursday, Bondi’s Justice Department filed a request to unpause the case … so that prosecutors could file a motion to dismiss.

U.S. Southern District of Texas Judge Rolando Olvera agreed the following day. The Justice motion to dismiss will likely follow in short order.

Here’s how The Hill described the prosecution’s case against SpaceX:

“…its lawsuit … alleged the company discriminated against refugees and asylees during the hiring process.”

Here’s Fox’s Austin, TX, station:

“The lawsuit claimed that from 2018 until 2022 the company claimed they could only hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents because of ‘export control laws.’”

Here’s the New York Times:

“The Justice Department had rejected that position, saying that export control laws posed no such restrictions.”

No way to know what happened, right? Did SpaceX discriminate against refugees and asylees? Who knows!

The Justice Department said the law posed no such restrictions. But who knows! Prosecutors claimed that SpaceX claimed it couldn’t hire refugees and asylees due to “export control laws,” but did SpaceX really claim that? Who knows!

Well, TFN knows, as it turns out. SpaceX not only refused to hire refugees and asylees, it said so openly. That was its policy.

So, news outlets don’t need to say alleged or claimed. They can verify it for themselves.

It’s not only verifiable, it’s recently verifiable. In an extended interview with Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt, Musk himself on Thursday admitted what he did and explained why. This was literally the same day Bondi filed to clear the way for dropping the charges. Here’s Musk:

“The Biden administration was, was attacking me next level. I mean, the Department of Justice — or Injustice, under the Biden administration — was, I mean, they were suing SpaceX. They’re suing SpaceX for not hiring asylum seekers. And we’re like, but it’s actually illegal for us to hire asylum seekers because we’re… rocket technology is covered under ITAR rules, which that means it’s an advanced weapons technology, yeah. And so we can only hire permanent residents or green card or citizens, right? Like, so we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. We said like, so how can they sue us for not hiring asylum seekers when it’s actually illegal for us to do so. But nonetheless, there was a big Department of Justice or Injustice case about this against SpaceX.”

Now, Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt didn’t push back against any of this. In his defense, he’s Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt. But the bigger problem is that that no one seems to have pushed back.

Musk falsely characterized the suit against him. You can read the complaint here. It doesn’t say asylum seekers, it says asylees (people already granted asylum) and refugees. So that’s one thing.

Now let’s look at how Musk’s explanation was covered. He claims that “it’s actually illegal” to hire the people (not asylum seekers; asylees and refugees) that he discriminated against. Here’s how that’s been reported.

• Fox: “SpaceX has previously denied wrongdoing, saying in a November 2023 filing that export laws impose "strict limitations on who it can employ."

• Bloomberg: “Musk claimed the company was barred from hiring non-US citizens or permanent residents because of federal restrictions on information sharing involving national security technology.”

• Axios: “SpaceX has denied wrongdoing in the case.”

SpaceX denies wrongdoing, but… SpaceX admits not hiring those people. SpaceX simply claims they legally couldn’t hire those people. So the facts of the case aren’t in dispute, just the law.

And yet, journalists describe it as he-said/they-said, because no one seems to have asked SpaceX to cite a specific statute backing up its claim about what the law says.

And it’s not like you can just look up laws and see what they actually say.

Oh, wait. You can. Or TFN can, anyway. The original complaint helpfully even tells Musk where to look:

That’s the complaint explaining that SpaceX is legally allowed to hire “U.S. persons,” and telling Musk where he can find the relevant definitions of U.S. person. Following the rabbit trail long enough, as TFN did, and U.S. persons gets defined as protected persons, which, eventually, gets defined as this, ipso facto, quid pro quo:

Got that? Refugee. Or granted asylum.

Now, if The Fucking News, Esq., can follow these legal citations, one would think that Musk’s lawyers might be able to.

Especially since this legal guidance was codified in a Dept. of Homeland Security handbook for employers as early as 2023 and is still there as of today.

But despite having the law spoonfed to him, Musk is still unclear on the basic premise of the suit: Not asylum seekers, asylees.

So, even now, he still can’t get it right, saying Friday that “The Biden administration launched a massive multi-year lawsuit against SpaceX for not hiring asylum seekers [emphasis added for denseness].”

Based on this profound mischaracterization, Musk called the original prosecution “An insane case of lawfare.”

The issue here is two-fold. (1) Musk is dumb. But also, (2) our media are reporting on this case as if it consists of unresolved questions.

• Did SpaceX say it wouldn’t hire refugees/asylees? Who knows! (Yes.)

• Did SpaceX refuse to hire them? Who knows! (Yes.)

• Did SpaceX claim it couldn’t legally hire them? Who knows! (Yes.)

• Could SpaceX legally hire them? Yes.

Pro tip for you lawyers out there: The Justice Department won’t prosecute you if you start doing something that it literally tells you is legal and would be illegal not to do.

Pro tip for extant journalists out there: The rightful journalistic reluctance to presume a verdict in a case does not oblige us to pretend that the facts or the law are in question.

And remember when Musk suggested this “lawfare” began under Pres. Joe Biden? It’s true that’s when the lawsuit was filed. But I haven’t seen anyone report when the Justice Department investigation began. So I guess you’ll have to find out from TFN, which is why we’re here.

The investigation was launched on May 29, 2020, under then-Pres. Donald Trump, when the Justice Department was run by Trump appointee Attorney General Bill Barr.

SpaceX knew it was under investigation by June 8, 2020. Still under Trump! But instead of simply stopping its discriminatory hiring, SpaceX refused to turn over its requested documents.

So Trump’s Justice Department subpoenaed SpaceX on June 22, 2020.

And as for the judge on the case? Bloomberg yesterday reported that Olvera is “an Obama appointee.” Which is true! But that’s not all he is. First he was a Republican appointee of then-Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who went on to become Energy secretary. For Trump.

Did anyone report that? Who knows. (No.)

---

Jonathan Larsen co-created Up w/ Chris Hayes at MSNBC and was a Countdown with Keith Olbermann writer and senior producer. He helped launch CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° and Air America Radio, and also worked at The Young Turks and The Daily Show with John Stewart.