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 out the trash?”
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.
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.