Speaking with Elon Musk, Trump said, “We have to take out” hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants inside the U.S. What did he mean? We asked Grok.
(Wikimedia Commons/Collage by Cathy Vogan)
By Cathy Vogan and Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News
About halfway through his conversation on Tuesday with Elon Musk, the former U.S. president said undocumented aliens are “in our country by the hundreds of thousands. And we have to take them out.”
What did Trump mean when he said to “take them out?” The online Collins Dictionary says:
“If you take someone out, you kill them, or injure them so badly that they can no longer fight or do anything to harm you.”
Did Trump misspeak? Did he just mean to remove them from the country, something like “take the trash out?”
We got no help from Musk, who missed the chance to ask him what he meant. But Musk had signaled at the start that this would not be an adversarial interview.
Even if Trump misspoke, he may have still sent a message to his supporters that could be interpreted by some of them, however wrongly, that it is open season on migrants in the U.S.
This is the full context of Trump’s remarks:
“We have to get rid of the criminals that have been given to us by other countries, as they laugh at us. They think we’re stupid to accept these people. These are radical stone cold killers in many cases, and terrorists. And they’re in our country by the hundreds of thousands. And we have to take them out.”
Trump never seems to cite evidence to back up his repeated assertion that there are “hundreds of thousands” of criminals and terrorists being “sent” to the U.S. by other countries who are “opening their prisons… and insane asylums.”
One might ask where are all the explosions if there are so many terrorists on the loose? What kind of terrorist are they?
Grok Responds
Musk’s own AI program called Grok, gave the following answer when it was asked by Consortium News “about claims made by Donald Trump about asylum seekers in the United States, and how his ‘call to action’ might be interpreted. Did Trump misspeak?”
Answer
“Yes, according to the available information, it appears that Trump misspoke when he claimed that ‘hundreds of thousands’ of criminals and terrorists were brought to the U.S. by other countries. There is no evidence to support such a high number of criminals or terrorists entering the country.”
Question
“What did Trump mean by ‘take them out’ and how could this be interpreted by millions of Americans?
Answer
“Based on the context and information available, when Trump said ‘take them out,’ he likely meant to remove or deport the criminals and terrorists he was referring to. This phrase can be interpreted in a literal sense, meaning to physically remove or take away these individuals from the country.
Grok responds. (Click to enlarge)
However, the phrase can also be interpreted in a more metaphorical or figurative sense, meaning to eliminate or get rid of these individuals from society, which could be seen as more aggressive or extreme.
Given the polarized nature of American politics and the tendency for Trump’s statements to be interpreted in various ways, it is likely that millions of Americans would interpret ‘take them out’ differently.
Supporters of Trump might interpret it in a more literal sense, focusing on the need to remove criminals and terrorists from the country. Critics of Trump might interpret it more metaphorically, suggesting a more aggressive or extreme approach.”
Question
Like eliminate or kill?
Answer
Yes, like eliminate or kill.
EU Threat
The Trump-Musk exchange followed a letter from the European Commissioner Thierry Breton, concerning restrictions under the Digital Services Act (DSA) on the dissemination of content that “promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence or certain instances of disinformation” to a European audience – approximately one third of the X platform’s users.
Citing the recent anti-migrant riots in Britain, which were sparked in part by false information on social media, the European Commission on Monday sent the letter to Musk, which warned that his conversation with Trump would be closely monitored for breaches of the DSA.
According to Politico:
“Europe’s Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton reminded the world’s richest man of his legal obligation to stop the ‘amplification of harmful content.’ …
Breton added that ‘any negative effect of illegal content’ could lead the EU to take further action against X, using ‘our full toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from harm.’
Politico added:
“Responding to Breton, Musk tweeted out a meme containing the words: ‘Take a big step back and literally, fuck your own face!'”
A Trump campaign spokesperson said: “The European Union should mind their own business instead of trying to meddle in the US presidential election.”
The Breton letter has raised concerns that the EU is threatening to punish Musk and his X platform and suppress not only his, but also a former U.S. president and current presidential candidate’s free speech.
The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did not approve the letter that Breton sent out, though it pointed out that her approval was not required. The FT said:
“Brussels has accused its internal market commissioner of going rogue by sending a letter to Elon Musk threatening punishment if content posted on social media site X was found to place EU citizens at risk of ‘serious harm’. …
‘The timing and the wording of the letter were neither co-ordinated or agreed with the president nor with the [commissioners],’ [the Commission] said. An EU official, who asked not to be named, said: “Thierry has his own mind and way of working and thinking.”
Cathy Vogan is a filmmaker and executive producer of CN Live!
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News.
Isn’t Trump a criminal? Convicted of sexual assault? 34 other felonies?
I watched the whole interview to see for myself what was said.
Trump repeated again and again that routinely demonized countries are “emptying their jails and insane asylums” and “sending their worst criminal — murders and rapists” to destroy the United States. No mention of U.S. coups, wars, proxy wars, and sanctions that have made life impossible for people who were living in countries the U.S. has destroyed and are therefore fleeing for countries in the global north where they might be able to survive.
It is true that people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder in the collective West are being outcompeted for low-paying jobs and meager social services, but instead of suggesting reparations for destroyed countries so people do not have to leave them, and stopping U.S. destruction of entire societies — not to mention punishing U.S. officials responsible for this savagery so it stops — Trump and others demonize and scapegoat migrants for the economic hardships the U.S. population has been enduring for decades because the U.S. oligarchy offshored manufacturing, financialized everything, and imposed brutal austerity inside the U.S. empire.
Musk asked Trump again and again in the interview to cut government spending and roll back regulations on U.S. corporations.
The worst thing about the interview is the millions of people who buy Trump’s and Musk’s politics, which btw are matched in horror by the Democrats’.
Consortium News is critical of both major parties and candidates. In just the past nine days we published “Kamala Harris’s Distinguished Career of Serving Injustice”. hxxps://consortiumnews.com/2020/08/13/kamala-harriss-distinguished-career-of-serving-injustice/
“Caitlin Johnstone: Kamala Harris & Genocide” hxxps://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/08/caitlin-johnstone-kamala-harris-genocide/
“You’re With Her, But Is She With You?” hxxps://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/05/youre-with-her-but-is-she-with-you
Donald Trump has enormous influence on millions of people. He has to be careful that what he says is not misinterpreted. We feel loose talk like this is irresponsible, especially in the context of the recent anti-migrant riots in Britain.
24 years have passed since Bush stole the election from Gore.
We since had a 50/50 split in administrations between the two parties.
The state of the country by and large has I assume mostly deteriorated despite some progressive limited victories in certain areas.
Every single time DNC called for all voters to stand united. However each election weakened the position of the true left and pushed the country further right. So did Democrats change anything?
In fact where they excelled was preventing Sanders. Nominally one of their own.
Very.Well.Done!
Lets assume Gore would have won in 2000. Kerry in 2004 and Clinton in 2016.
Does anyone really believe this would have made a difference?
I do not argue for people to vote GOP. But what if the DNC needs a really humiliating defeat in order to let the left take over.
Since: What will change with a Harris/Walz presidency?
Lets be realistic: Nothing.
Go through the list and there will be a few boxes to be ticked. But that might even nurture illusions of progress and change where there is none. The legacy media who have betrayed the US and the world over and over and over again would rejoice and pop the champagne bottles, consider their insulting conduct affirmed and rewarded with even more leeway to lie, manufacture, manipulate.
For the necessary change this will not do. And with the GOP and the DNC in essence the same it never will.
In certain areas such as foreign policy we in Europe fear that a Harris win might even be worse.
Albeit I still contest that. Those voices should not overestimate Trump´s maneuvering space against the CIA e.g.
After all the international situation from the POV of US imperialist interests has become worse and pressure on any president will be bigger than 2016.
But what would be different if a – fictious – “soft” Trump&Vance administration would indeed take over?
What if they might be able to curtail the intelligence services who in the view of some like Jeffrey Sachs, Patrick Lawrence, Chris Hedges, and I assume Caitlin Johnstone too, are the real bearers of power when it comes to the decisions that matter most.
Along with the billionaire class as described in Peter Phillips´s upcoming book „Titans of Capital: How Concentrated Wealth Threatens Humanity“,
hxxps://jacobin.com/2024/08/finance-titans-democracy-climate-davos
What are voters supposed to do?
Vote for Stein and West where they are allowed to (incredible that nobody in Europe speaks about this manipulation of ballots) hoping to gain leverage over the DNC?
Something tells me that won´t work. But I am 10.000 miles away. So my insight is limited and I might very well miss important details.
I gather form what I have read here that Trump and Musk have made the fact that, remember they are both billionaires, self evident both present a clear and present danger to others.
Maybe it is time for both to surrender vast portions of their, which they use to disrupt the lives of others.
As the man in the shed would say, “It’s just a thought, which like ideas, live and die of their own merit.
What gives Musk the right to use such extreme vulgarity?
Who gets the right, Julia, to establish all the exceptions that some (probably many!) would wish to make limiting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.? (Let’s just call it the very freedom to communicate in public.) I’m sure that every individual is going to start claiming that privilege, especially people who already have lots of power and money. I don’t think that extremist “nut jobs” would be in the most advantageous position to “infect your mind” with a “mind virus” as Musk himself likes to call memes he disagrees with.
Look, I actually agree with him when he speaks of the damage that “woke” extremism is doing to young people today. He may have actually failed to save his own kid from undertaking irreversible cosmetic surgery (converting him into a sterile eunuch but certainly not a woman) under the illusion that his sex would truly be changed, probably without consequences that he, now a pseudo “she,” failed to consider–and maybe because s/he was effectively screened from the truth by militant activists (as long as their movement remains popular). Mr. Musk says he tried his damnedest to educate his former son, whom he now considers dead to him. I think he realises his case would not have been made even if he controlled more than the modalities of public communication (broadcast media, on-line media, print media, etc), that is to say that he could control the very right of his fellow citizens to speak of such things.
Over the centuries our government has proven that it can effectively ban many activities by making them crimes (some such episodes–like prohibition–ending up being really extreme fuster clucks). However, it has never been able to make people stop talking about such things especially if considered really important or critical to our constitutional liberties such as gun ownership or abortion. Telling people that something is so wrong that they may not even speak of it is the surest way to make them want the world to know their opinion and why it must prevail above all others!
@realist
i do not mean to limit freedom of speech.
i just wish people who enjoy lashing out
at others would think twice before lashing out.
i just wish people who enjoy disinforming
others would think twice before doing so!
respect, dignity, decency, love and all that …
as to “woke extremism” [re. gender issues]:
for centuries plenty of people considered
“male” and “female” the norm, at least in
western countries. we are just not used to
imagining/accepting that there is more to
human existence than either/or fe/male.
[imho, there is zero extremism in that.]
just as you advocate freedom of speech
you might want to consider advocating
freedom of choices in other realms of life.
respect, dignity, decency, love, variety and all that …
[if the richest man on earth can’t bring
himself to respect/love his child bc s/he
does not live up to his expectations – well,
does that not make this rich man poor?]
Money is NOT speech just because a corrupted, activist SCOTUS ruled it as such. See my earlier post here, I agree with JonnyJames.
People, humans talk to each other to communicate. Take that corporate legalese and have sex with Musk’s face and see it works the same.
Come On get real!
I wish to amend my previous comment.Censorship is not “probably” worse than propaganda. It is certainly,without a doubt,worse.
Censorship is probably worse than propaganda.The old speak,see,say no evil rubric is for monkeys imitating monkeys.Open hearts and open minds rely on freedom of speech and freedom of association. I rely on Consortiumnews and comments like those from Realist.
How wonderful to live in a perverse and corrupt society where the vast majority of money, resources and power are concentrated into an oligarchy. Individual oligarchs and their monopoly BigTech (see: Yanis Varoufakis’ TechnoFeudalism) can dictate “public” discourse. (Elon the Oligarch is only one example)
No worries, the Medieval Peasant mindset will prevail, Collective Stockholm Syndrome will prevail: millions will go to the polls and willingly vote for the D brand of genocide and tyranny, or the R brand of genocide and Tyranny. The plebs will do as the oligarchy media instruct them.
Krishnamurti: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
What is it that the media provide for us about conflicts eg in Ukraine or in Palestine if not someone’s decision of truth which many people will disagree with?
I agree with “The Realist” comment here. Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech? How quaint. Money is legally defined as “free speech”. The oligarchy have bought and paid for all the free speech and none for us. Let’s get real
But not only for billionaires.
Murder & mayhem
is NOT free speech!
EU letter was to Mush, not to election campaign.
Thus, free advert for repubs.
Trump said “aliens.” I wonder what planet they are from. He didn’t mention that. Maybe he plans to produce a new sci/fi movie. What do you think?
I would think a dictionary would be useful for you. I enjoyed the movie series of the “Aliens” but Trump wasn’t referring to that.
I don’t think that whatever Musk, Trump or whomever you might disagree with confers upon you, the government or even god almighty any right or obligation to forcebly shut you down (censor you, or in any way block your freedom of speech). If you get so lathered up from someone else’s words it becomes your obligation to explain to the world, in civil terms, why this is and how impressing your views upon the world would (or might) make it better in some fashion. But neither you, nor the King of Siam, have the right to physically silence anyone.
Does anyone believe that the United States dodged becoming a Marxist state by precluding a discussion of what Marxism is, how it would be implemented and what the consequences on the full spectrum of socio-economic contingencies would likely (or possibly) be? How did we come to know what terrible things Hitler stood for, other than by listening to what he, and his many surrogates, had to say? Most of us learned (or think we did) by listening to, not gaging others. There is no truth so horrible that it is totally unspeakable. Being oblivious to evil would reap greater consequences than squarely facing them in the long run. In fact, how better to avoid such things? They say “to be forewarned is to be fore armed.”
So, humans have believed in truth-telling above all else over many generation and wide geographies. Responding to lies does not make for justifiable exceptions to the rule. Part of your task simply becomes countering the lies with your own truthful words. If it were otherwise, Jesus might well have added a ninth beatitude on the Mount that “blessed are the liars, for they save us the trouble of actually thinking things out, gathering the truth, learning to recognise falsehoods, organising our thoughts and countering our opponents’ words not with our most lucid rhetoric but with facile repressive, violent or even lethal actions.” Why bother with such niceties? The savages say. Because the goal is to minimize untruths and false narratives, not to suppress, deny personal rights or otherwise harm the people who articulate them (or what you may erroneously believe qualifies as untruth). It should always be the words, the rhetoric, the philosophies, the empirical views of the same phenomenon simply seen from different vantage points, that are at loggerheads, not the organic human minds and living beings expressing those ideas. Maximizing truth is not attained by minimizing liberty. Quite the contrary. At least that has been the belief gradually refined over the past several millennia across Western civilisation. Or, so we say.
@realist
in a relatively ideal world relatively reasonable people
with conflicting opinions would take the time to sit down
and talk things over until they reach relatively satisfying
agreements as to which way forward.
jesus did not live in the digital age.
he might have wished to – so all his
messages could spread super-quickly.
he did not have to contend with bots,
algorithms and many other devices that
spread falsehoods faster than wildfires
and REACH people who, all too willingly,
BELIEVE these falsehoods bc searching
for [the] truth[s] is too tedious, after all …
is there method in the madness of our
so utterly failing educational systems
that should shield people from falling
for deliberate misinformation.
[remember former CIA-chief william casey:
“our disinformation program is complete once
everything the american public believes is false.”]
was there time to sit down with the british anti-
migrant rioters who – deliberately misinformed
about the motives and the national origin of the
british citizen who stabbed 3 children to death –
created chaos for days on end.
was there time to sit down with them, make them
see reason and ultimately change their minds?
MAYBE i am misreading you?
i’m all for peaceful discussions with opponents.
but in this digital age of ‘alternative facts’ i tend
to feel overwhelmed, not least by someone who,
instead of wanting to sit down and talk, tells me
to “take a big step back and literally f…”
[see full quote above].
BTW, i’m tired of media moguls and insatiable
tech giants CON_stantly out trying to make me
more and more dependent on their services.
[not to speak of their uber-terrible tax ethics!]
Your saying that people should practice caution, restraint, reciprocal etiquette and common sense before mouthing off on controversial, inflammatory or insulting topics is a very different matter than being prohibited from speaking about a topic under penalty of the law, or trapped under the wheels of power and wealth. Certainly not everything needs to be said just because it can be said. Maintaining a strategic silence is certainly part of the art of effective communication, especially in arenas like debate and diplomacy. There have developed numerous sage epigrams on the matter, such as “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent” and “Better to remain silent and be thought the fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” I doubt you would disagree, in fact, I think you were saying this in other words.
“Does anyone believe that the United States dodged becoming a Marxist state by precluding a discussion of what Marxism is, how it would be implemented and what the consequences on the full spectrum of socio-economic contingencies would likely (or possibly) be?”
I’ve been living in the USA for almost 78 years and I’ve never had a chance to take part in such a discussion. All I’ve been hearing all my life is one-way antisocialist propaganda. And all I’ve been seeing is subversion and sabotage of any country that tried to implement a socialist solution.
You are correct in that there is no shortage of those who would attempt to rig the system and shut down free speech to attain or maintain a monopoly of power. That’s why you need to defend (at least the principle of) free speech whenever you see it challenged or assailed. Raise your own hullabaloo even if you think it will fall short. If nothing else, write a comment on the CN board. Things will become even worse than these many years we have both lived through if you do not. Keep an open mind and do not ignore the nonsense emanating from either “side.” I used to think that the Republicans were the most vile thieves of our freedom, liberties and economic well being, and that the Dems were, as advertised, the lesser of evils. Guess what? Based on their actions, the roles of the two sides (when they are not actually and actively colluding in plain sight) have diametrically reversed with the passage of time. Constantly watch what they both say and do because the deceit is monumental. Explain to me how eighty years after Hitler, Jews in Israel are openly committing genocide and their leader is given 78 standing ovations in a joint session of Congress? All they want is what? The American people to help them with their murderous work! Bibi says “jump,” and Joe asks “how high?” Americans long ago seem to have forgotten how to use our free speech to defend ourselves and our supposed principles. We have stopped caring exactly what is being done, no matter how heinous, rather than simply who is the culprit allegedly engaged in the wrong-doing.