The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and one of the last remaining Hamas leaders, Mohammed Deif, who might already be dead. The warrants for the Israeli leaders were issued for crimes against humanity and war crimes that the court found reasonable grounds to believe they bore criminal responsibility for. Here is what the court's publicly shared summary of the findings outlines, what this means, and what could happen next. Netanyahu and Gallant's alleged crimes The prosecution submitted an application to court accusing Netanyahu and Gallant of specific crimes from at least October 8, 2023, until at least May 20, 2024. The court assessed the evidence and found reasonable grounds to accept most of the allegations and charge them with two war crimes and three crimes against humanity . It added that the "alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza." While the ICC found there was sufficient evidence for both arrest warrants, the alleged crimes are yet to be tested in court. Netanyahu strongly rejected the alleged crimes, calling them "absurd" and "false" and the warrants "anti-Semitic". In an earlier statement, his office said the charges were biased and discriminatory. "Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will not give in to pressure, will not flinch and will not withdraw until all the war goals set by Israel at the start of the campaign are achieved," it read. One of the main charges found against them is that they " bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare" . "The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival , including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October, 2023, to 20 May, 2024." The court said it considered the following alleged actions and findings and when reaching its ruling: Action: Role in impeding humanitarian aid and failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal Finding: Resulted in disruption to the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods Action: The above in addition to cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply Finding: Impacted the availability of water and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care Action: Decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza often being conditional or in response to international pressure instead of to fulfil international humanitarian law obligations Finding: The increases in humanitarian assistance not being sufficient to improve the population's access to essential goods Action: The prolonged period of deprivation and Netanyahu's statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war Finding: Their being no clear military need or other justification for the restrictions under international humanitarian law identified The second finding was that when the alleged starvation led to death, it amounted to murder but not extermination. "There are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies , created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children, due to malnutrition and dehydration." The court found "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims" . But it " could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met". The third finding was that the suffering inflicted on the injured due to lack of medical supplies amounted to inhumane acts. "By intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines , the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment . "Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics , and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. "This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts ." The fourth finding was that all the above alleged actions deprived civilians of their fundamental rights. "The chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health , and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. "It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed ." Lastly, the court found that there are reasonable grounds to believe the pair bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for two specific attacks on civilians. It said reasonable grounds exist to believe they failed to "prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities" despite "having measures available to them" to do so. "The material provided by the prosecution only allowed [the chamber] to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians ." "The chamber assessed that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza." The question of jurisdiction Israel had made a submission to the court arguing it had no jurisdiction to investigate war crimes or issue arrest warrants to Israeli nationals. The court rejected the challenge, noting that " the acceptance by Israel of the court's jurisdiction is not required , as the court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of Palestine." And that challenging arrest warrants was "premature" because under the Rome Statue, "states are not entitled to challenge the court's jurisdiction ... prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest." When assessing the war crimes, the court "found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict" because there were reasonable grounds "to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied ." "This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory." The question of genocide Luis Moreno Ocampo, who served as the first prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, told RN Breakfast that the case put before the court was a "minimalistic one". He said the judges did not analyse the genocide or the bombing campaign. "They focused on something that was very clear — which is starvation. Because Mr Gallant ordered the blockade of the food and water at the beginning, from the beginning and it's very clear," he said. "President Biden was for one year begging Netanyahu to let the water and food go through" but it was not enough, he said. "Basically, [the prosecution] said Israel is using starvation as a tool, as a weapon in the war. "That is absolutely prohibited, it is not possible. "So that why, legally it's very difficult to challenge this because it's very simple, very clear." Meanwhile, he said trying to prove a genocide was taking place was more "complicated". "To prove genocide the main issue is to prove intention. Has Netanyahu [the] intention to destroy the Palestinians as a group?" he said. "Many people say yes, and it's possible, and in fact, should be investigated, because there are reasons to believe he has intentions, but he's not saying that. "He's saying something different, he's saying we have to control terrorists, we don't to like to kill civilians. "So it's more controversial, and the judges, I think wisely, decided not to go to this discussion, [and instead] go to something very simple, very clear, [such as] starvation as a war crime." The ICC's prosector Karim Khan, who made the application to the court, in a statement emphasised "these applications were made following an independent investigation, and on the basis of objective, verifiable evidence vetted through a forensic process." Deif's alleged crimes The court also issued an arrest warrant for "Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, commonly known as 'Deif ', for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the territory of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine from at least 7 October, 2023." It said Deif was the highest commander of the military wing of Hamas (known as the al-Qassam Brigades) at the time of the alleged conduct. Deif has reportedly been killed, but that's not confirmed nor denied, and the prosecution said it will "to gather information with respect to his reported death". It had initially sought two more for senior Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, but both had since been killed and applications were withdrawn. The court found there was reasonable grounds to believe that Deif is "responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder ; extermination ; torture ; and rape and other form of sexual violence ; as well as the war crimes of murder , cruel treatment , torture ; taking hostages ; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other form of sexual violence. " The court detailed actions taken by Hamas and other groups as evidence which supported its ruling including: Actions: Hamas carried out mass killings in Israel, including at the Supernova festival Finding: These killings qualify as the crime against humanity and the war crime of murder Action: Shooting at people with semi-automatic weapons at the Supernova festival and areas around the event Finding: War crime of intentionally directing attacks against civilians was committed Action: Civilians were killed at several separate locations in coordinated attacks Finding: This makes part of a mass killing of members of the civilian population, and therefore the crime against humanity of extermination was committed Action: A large number of people were "seized" from Israel and kept in secret locations in Gaza with Hamas in control, "conducted with the aim to negotiate their release in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israel" Finding: The war crime of hostage taking was committed Action: Some of the hostages, predominantly women, were allegedly subjected to sexual and gender based violence, including forced penetration, forced nudity, and humiliating and degrading treatment Finding: The crimes of torture as a crime against humanity and war crime; rape and other forms of sexual violence as crimes against humanity and war crimes; cruel treatment as a war crime; and outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime were committed The court found that Deif bore individual criminal responsibility for the all of the alleged crimes as he was one of the senior leaders of Hamas who "agreed to jointly carry out" the October 7, 2023, attack. It found that "in his role as the commander of the al-Qassam Brigades, and through his actions prior to, during and after the 7 October Operation, is responsible for the commission of these crimes." The court also considered that he "ordered or induced the crimes or is responsible as a military commander for the criminal conduct of his subordinates." The impact of the arrest warrants The warrants in their most basic form make it difficult for the leaders to travel to the 125 member countries of the ICC where they technically face the threat of arrest upon arrival. Australia is one of those countries, but Israel's ally, the United States is not. Mr Khan appealed to the countries to "live up to their commitment to the Rome Statute by respecting and complying with these judicial orders." "We count on their cooperation in this situation ... we also welcome collaboration with non-States Parties in working towards accountability and upholding international law," he added. This threat of arrest could pose some challenges to a head of state, Mr Ocampo said, because his authority was now affected. "Because it's a court, an independent court, reviewing the evidence, saying 'I'm sorry, you're committing war crimes'," Mr Ocampo said. "He's still innocent, but he's a suspect. "If he's not surrendering ... he will be a fugitive in many countries, including Australia, including New Zealand, including Europe, including all south America." Gallant suffers the same fate despite being fired from his job as defence minister, as he is still liable for his actions during his time in office. Mr Ocampo said this also posed an issue for the United States as it must choose what it does. "Legally, it's not controversial. Legally, it's clear. Politically, it's controversial," he said. "But political actors are not a court. We are blessed that we have an international criminal court up and running, prosecuting Netanyahu, prosecuting whoever, friend or enemy, allegedly committing war crimes. "So the problem is states have to adjust — because President Biden was always saying consistently, Israel should respect the international law. "Well, right now, the judges say it's clear, it's clear violation of international law, so now the US is tested. "Is the US respecting international law when a friend is committing the crimes? That is a test." He added that Australia "could be critically important here" because with Biden's presidency almost over and Donald Trump on the way in, politically things could change. "Biden could not stop Netanyahu, now Trump is coming, and Trump could have interesting policy here, because he's pragmatic," he said. "He can use the ICC to transform the political situation, and Australia should help the US on that — because Australia is a member of the Rome Statue, Australia will respect the ICC decision. "I think it's a very interesting moment, to see how political actors like Australia and the US adjust and respect international law, when a friend, that is Israel, is now confronted with it." What happens next? Israel will likely challenge these charges now that the arrest warrants have been issued, which will prompt the court to rule on the question of jurisdiction again. In its release, the court said "conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing", which opens the possibility for the prosecution to conduct further investigations and make other applications. Mr Ocampo said, however, so far Netanyahu is looking to rid himself of this situation using political means and leveraging support from the US, instead of constructing a legal argument. "That is a pity because the warrant cannot be destroyed for that reason," he said. He said the only way to stop the ICC is for Israel to conduct a similar, legitimate national investigation. "Because the rules for the ICC are that it intervenes when the national judiciary is not intervening." It's also possible for others to have warrants issued against them, but no other cases so far have been submitted to the court. The first four crimes against Netanyahu and Gallant were for their roles as "co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others", implying others within the Israeli government or elsewhere could also bear some responsibility. The second war crime was for their roles as civilian superiors, and there is no specific mention of the military beyond noting the pairs conduct concerning "the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine". With all of the ways Netanyahu could escape prosecution or arrest, Mr Ocampo said the problem now was how all of this would end. "Because for the last year, we watched, with frustration, killing, massive killing, from Hamas against Israel, Israel against Palestinians, and this is escalated into Lebanon and the next step is Iran, and the next step is world war. So where do we stop that?" Mr Ocampo said. "This is the chance, we have a chance now to transform a war into a criminal proceeding." ABCTens of thousands of people have expressed support on social media for the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, or sympathized with it, in what at least one researcher is calling a worrying sign of radicalization among segments of the U.S. population. “And people wonder why we want these executives dead,” wrote Taylor Lorenz, a former New York Times and Washington Post journalist, in a post on BlueSky a few hours after the CEO, 50-year-old Brian Thompson, was gunned down in Manhattan by a man with a silenced pistol. After a backlash, Lorenz later posted , “no, that doesn’t mean people should murder them.” The Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University identified thousands of similar posts on X within hours of the killing. The posts, which could have been viewed by more than 8.3 million accounts, garnered 180,000 likes and 24,400 retweets, according to the institute . “The surge of social media posts praising and glorifying the killing of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson is deeply concerning,” said Alex Goldenberg, a senior adviser for the institute and a fellow at Rutgers. “We’ve identified highly engaged posts circulating the names of other healthcare CEOs and others celebrating the shooter," he said. "The framing of this incident as some opening blow in a class war and not a brutal murder is especially alarming.” Law enforcement officials have been warning for years of a heightened risk of political violence from a small minority of Americans, mainly on the right, radicalized on social media and marinating in conspiracy theories. (Police have not revealed information about the killer’s motive.) These posts appeared to come mostly from accounts that have expressed far-left views, but some came from far-right accounts as well, noted Tobita Chow, a climate activist whose post summing up the sentiment reached millions of accounts. “My notifications are mostly a cascade of populist rage,” he posted . “Checking people’s profiles, it’s coming from across the political spectrum: leftists, normie Dems, MAGA, a libertarian or two, and many people whose presence on here is otherwise entirely apolitical.” The main theme animating many of the posts about the Thompson killing was that UnitedHealthcare and other insurance companies harm and kill Americans by denying coverage in the name of profit. Many posts raised an announcement last month by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield — which covers consumers in Connecticut, New York and Missouri — that it would no longer pay for anesthesia care if a surgery or procedure goes beyond an arbitrary time limit, regardless of how long the procedure takes. (Anthem BCBS reversed course on the policy Thursday.) “Then people wonder why a health insurance CEO was gunned down ... because insurance companies pull this garbage,” one X user wrote . On the official Facebook post about Thompson’s death from UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare, most people reacted with the “laughter” emoji. Out of approximately 40,000 reactions on the post, 35,000 used the “Haha” emote and 2,200 used the “Sad” emote. Some of the top sitewide posts on Reddit after the shooting were celebratory, ranging from memes that congratulated the shooter to top replies in subreddits like “r/nursing” that created a mock coverage review and claim denial for Thompson’s care. “This fatal shooting has been reviewed by a peer and is considered a non-covered experimental procedure,” read a reply with over 2,400 upvotes. Thompson was the father of two teenagers. Law enforcement officials told NBC News they found the words “deny,” “defend” and “depose,” written on the shell casings found at the shooting scene. Those words seem to echo the title of a 2010 book, “Delay Deny Defend,” whose subtitle is, “Why insurance companies don’t pay claims and what you can do about it.” The author declined to comment. Lorenz, who was a technology reporter for The New York Times from 2019 to 2022 and a columnist for the Washington Post from 2022 to earlier this year, also posted the photo of another insurance company CEO with a birthdate and a blank date of death. (That post has since been removed.) And she reposted a post that said: “hypothetically, would it be considered an actionable threat to start emailing other insurance CEOs a simple, ‘you’re next’?” Lorenz, who now hosts a popular podcast for Vox Media and has a Substack newsletter, said in an email to NBC News that she was not seeking to justify violence. She noted that she later posted : “I hope people learn the names of all of these insurance company CEOs and engage in very peaceful letter writing campaigns so that they stop ruthlessly murdering thousands of innocent Americans by denying coverage.” In the email to NBC News, she said she didn’t intend to suggest that she personally wanted health care executives dead. “My post that you cited below uses the royal ‘we’ and is explaining the public sentiment surrounding the event. People absolutely want healthcare executives dead because these executives are responsible for unfathomable levels of death and suffering. ... People have a very justified hatred toward insurance company CEOs because of the death and suffering they facilitate. It’s interesting how you don’t consider that violence.” She added, “Me surfacing commentary that OTHER people post like Jenny, is not me endorsing those people and their posts. I can’t believe I have to explain to a reporter in 2024 that retweets are not endorsements.” One of the most read X posts on the subject came from Chow, the climate activist. In an interview, he said he was not condoning the killing, but calling attention to populist anger about the private health insurance system. “Saw mainstream news coverage about the killing of the CEO of United Healthcare on TikTok and I think political and industry leaders might want to read the comments and think hard about them,” he wrote in a post that got 137,000 likes. “Compassion withheld until documentation can be produced that determines the bullet holes were not a preexisting condition,” one user responded. “My take is that there is a great deal of populist anger about the way corporations in private health insurance are able to just abuse people and ruin people’s lives and in the case of health insurance even potentially leave them to die with impunity and for profit,” Chow said. “Obviously I don’t think the solution to that is vigilante assassinations, but I think business and political leaders need to take seriously where this sentiment is coming from.” He said the killing produced an outpouring of complaints about UnitedHealthcare specifically. Many social media users shared a chart from the finance website ValuePenguin that showed UnitedHealthcare had the highest claims denial rate among major insurance companies. While the gunman’s motive is not yet known, health care industry professionals have experienced escalating threats , said Drew Neckar, a principal consultant at Cosecure, a security and risk management company. “The health care sector specifically has seen a pretty significant increase in violence, whether that be physical violence, threats, et cetera. It’s been a problem for decades, but it has significantly increased since the pandemic,” he said. Neckar noted that the threats are usually aimed at front-line providers such as doctors and nurses, though he said he has also noticed an increase in threats against health care executives. “There isn’t a healthcare organization I’ve worked with in the past several years that hasn’t experienced at least a 25 to 50% increase in actual violence against staff and threats of violence against staff,” he said. Shannon Watts, founder of the gun violence prevention group Moms Demand Action, vividly recalls the endless, losing battles loved ones waged against UnitedHealthcare for coverage sought by her late stepfather, who was dying from glioblastoma in the early 2000s. Despite her bitterness over UnitedHealthcare’s treatment of her stepfather, Watts was horrified to read the vitriol aimed at the slain executive. “You know it was really across all platforms. It was shocking to me to see prominent people, not just bots, defending, condoning, mocking, celebrating gun violence,” she said. “Two things can be true: The health insurance system is broken and must be fixed, and also gun violence and murder is wrong.”
Oxford man charged with asking a minor for explicit photos
President-elect Donald Trump has announced key cabinet nominations ahead of his January 20 inauguration. In November, he nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with a mission to implement a “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, which includes plans to eliminate chemical additives from the U.S. food supply. Recent social media posts have sparked rumors that Kennedy intends to ban Hershey’s chocolate. “BREAKING: Effective January 20th, Hershey’s Chocolate will be BANNED in the United States. Make America Healthy Again,” reads a post on X, featuring a screenshot purportedly from Kennedy’s account. This post claims the ban is part of Kennedy’s “war on bioengineered food.” Commenters questioned whether these claims are true. THE QUESTION Has Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced plans to ban Hershey’s chocolate? THE SOURCES Parody account that made the original Diet Coke ban post Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s real X , Instagram and Facebook accounts Review of Hershey’s website and social media accounts THE ANSWER No, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has not announced plans to ban Hershey's chocolate. WHAT WE FOUND Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has not announced plans for a ban on Hershey’s chocolate. The claim originated from a parody account with the display name “ Robert F. Kennedy Jr - Health Secretary Parody .” The account has since been suspended on X, but it previously spread a similar false claim about Kennedy wanting to ban Diet Coke. Social media posts sharing screenshots from the parody account cropped out the word “parody,” making it appear as if the posts were from Kennedy’s official account. Kennedy’s real X account , with the display name “Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” has 5 million followers and doesn’t include the dash mark and ellipsis seen in the screenshots about a Hershey’s ban. Kennedy has not posted anything about a possible Hershey’s chocolate ban on his real account, nor on his Instagram or Facebook pages. VERIFY found no credible news articles supporting claims of a Hershey’s chocolate ban. Additionally, Hershey’s websites and social media accounts do not indicate any plans to halt chocolate sales in the U.S. after Inauguration Day. We reached out to Kennedy and Hershey’s for comment but did not hear back at the time of publication.The Green Bay Packers pitched a shutout. Green Bay concluded Week 16 with a 34-0 home rout over the New Orleans Saints on Monday Night Football . > Philadelphia news 24/7: Watch NBC10 free wherever you are Jordan Love didn't have the best performance in the victory, but a solid rushing attack got the Packers over the line. The Saints tried to compete with injury issues, but Spencer Rattler couldn't help put any points on the board. New Orleans dropped to 5-10 with the loss having already been eliminated from postseason contention. Green Bay improved to 11-4 and clinched its spot for the second straight season with Love. Let's analyze the game further with winners and losers: WINNER: Green Bay's rushing attack The Packers were propelled by Josh Jacobs, Emanuel Wilson and Chris Brooks on the ground. Jacobs, as usual, led the way with 69 yards on 13 carries, while Wilson added 52 yards on 11 carries. Josh Jacobs confirmed STRONG pic.twitter.com/fORemLJWIf Brooks tacked on 23 yards on six tries, with all three rushers scoring a touchdown apiece. With a total of 188 ground yards between nine different rushers (including Malik Willis' three QB kneels), Green Bay easily outpaced New Orleans. LOSER: New Orleans' rushing attack It was the opposite story on the ground for the Saints. Without leading rusher Alvin Kamara, no option could generate any momentum against the Packers' front. Rattler led the way with 28 yards on five attempts. Three other rushers tallied 15 carries for just 39 yards, with Jordan Mims' 16 yards on four attempts leading the way. Kendre Miller had 15 yards on eight runs. WINNER: Playoff berths The win moved Green Bay to 11-4 and officially clinched the team a playoff spot. The Packers are currently the No. 6 seed after being No. 7 last season and showcasing the potential for a deep run. Right above Green Bay is the Minnesota Vikings, which is 13-2 and duking it out with the also 13-2 Detroit Lions for the NFC North title and No. 1 seed in the NFC. Green Bay will need help if it hopes to climb the ladder. LOSER: QB play While the Packers put up 34 points, Love wasn't as influential as he could've been on the night. He completed just 16 of 28 passes for 182 yards, one touchdown and no picks. Love had a strong run in the playoffs last season, but he's struggled with inconsistency this year. Though he avoided throwing a pick, he'll need to be much better to give the Packers a chance against the real contenders. Rattler was also predictably poor, completing 50% of his passes for 153 yards, no touchdowns and a pick. WINNER: Shutouts Green Bay's win became the first shutout of the 2024 regular season. As the league continues to focus on offensive play and scoring, New Orleans had nothing to show. With Derek Carr and a healthier offense things could've been different, but for now the Saints entered the wrong side of history despite their ability to light up the scoreboard in the first few weeks.Up to 75% off bestsellers in Debenhams sale including suitcases, watches and airfryers
Arsenal climb to second with 1-0 win over struggling Ipswich
WASHINGTON — As billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk praised Donald Trump at an October rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and awarded a $1 million check at a town hall in McKees Rocks later that month, he also helped former hedge fund CEO Dave McCormick oust long-term incumbent U.S. Sen. Bob Casey. That's according to U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who said Sunday that Musk's impact within Pennsylvania's borders went beyond Trump's victory in the most populous battleground state and affected the Senate race. "It's rare to have a surrogate that has a lot of fanboys and is very compelling to a lot of the demographic that we are losing in, in my party and in Pennsylvania," Fetterman said on ABC's "This Week. "I really believe that it mattered. We lost Bob Casey for 15,000 votes. And yeah, I'm sure he did move the needle. That's undeniable." He said Musk's impact went beyond that of a typical surrogate, like Fetterman was, campaigning for a favored candidate — even beyond the millions of dollars he spent on the presidential campaign. Musk contributed more than $235 million to his own super PAC, which funded a Pennsylvania statewide tour and a controversial $1 million-a-day giveaway. "Musk and I, we're in the business, surrogacy is part of it, and sometimes it really has much of an impact," Fetterman said. "But I knew that was going to be a special one ... an endorsement and an active one, and I'm not even talking about it as a checkbook." Fetterman also praised what he said was Trump's "singular political talent." "You know, he had the energy and almost a sense of fearlessness to just say all those kinds of things," he said "And people, it's undeniable that it has an entertaining aspect for that, too, and just if you're not afraid to say all of those things, or, and after you survived an assassination, you literally were shot in your head and had the presence of mind to respond, you know, 'fight, fight, fight.' " He said he disagreed with Vice President Kamala Harris' characterization of Trump, who tried to overturn the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden, as a "fascist." "That's her prerogative, I mean, but, but it's not a word that I would use," Fetterman said. "Because you put a lot of Democrats, especially in my state, that I know, and I happen to love people that are going to vote for Trump, and they are not fascists. And also fascism, that's not a word that regular people, you know, use, you know? I think people are going to decide who is the candidate that's going to protect and project, you know, my version of the American way of life, and that's what happened." Even as Fetterman was campaigning for Harris — saying he thought she would carry the state — he said there was no denying Trump's popularity among segments of Pennsylvania voters. "If you live in Pennsylvania and you spend time in 'red county' Pennsylvania, as much as I did, the support is astonishing," he said. "I mean, I was driving home from Indiana County at nine o'clock, and there was a Trump superstore on the side of a road, nine o'clock on Friday night, and people are buying swag. And then really, that really crystallized in, at the assassination, and that was in Butler County, Western Pennsylvania, fairly close to where I live. And the day or two later, you start seeing people wearing shirts with that iconic picture. And, you know, the energy and the anger and, it's like, wow, I really thought — in fact, I thought that might be ballgame." (c)2024 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Visit the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at www.post-gazette.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Elon Musk, the world's richest person and one of Donald Trump's closest allies, met with US lawmakers Thursday on his plans for overseeing radical government spending cuts under the incoming administration. President-elect Trump rewarded the Tesla, X and SpaceX chief for his support during the White House campaign by naming him head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, along with another wealthy ally, Vivek Ramaswamy. Although the office, dubbed DOGE, has a purely advisory role, Musk's star power and intense influence in Trump's inner circle bring political clout. As Musk and Ramaswamy strode into the Capitol for meetings with lawmakers, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson touted "a new day in America." "There's an enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse," he told reporters. "Government is too big, it does too many things, and it does almost nothing well." Musk and Ramaswamy have said they can identify billions of dollars of cuts in spending, sparking questions about whether Republicans will even try to slash politically popular social security programs. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last month, the two businessmen laid out plans for the White House to cut staff, trim government programs and reduce federal regulations, even if it means bypassing Congress, which holds budgetary power. "The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long," Musk and Ramaswamy wrote. "We're doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. During Trump's election campaign, Musk vowed to reduce federal spending by $2 trillion. This would represent cutting total US spending by a third, almost certainly meaning devastation of social support programs -- something that has never garnered strong political backing. Musk's emphasis on firing large numbers of government employees, however, echoes Republican talking points about the need to take on an overbearing state and may garner more support. Musk says he is seeking "mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy." Musk suggested banning government employees from working at home as an opening tactic. "Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome." Cuts will also target subsidies to public broadcasters and groups such as Planned Parenthood, which campaigns for abortion access and offers an array of reproductive health services. But DOGE is unlikely, at least initially, to go after welfare programs such as Social Security or health insurance for the poor and seniors, Ramaswamy said in an interview with Axios on Wednesday. Such cuts should be "a policy decision that belongs to the voters" and their representatives in Congress, Ramaswamy said. A reduction in military spending, which climbed to $820 billion in 2023, is also unlikely to be on the table. Musk's new role raises the question of potential conflicts of interest, since he could be issuing policy recommendations that impact directly on his own business empire. Underlining the close connection to DOGE, Musk's favorite cryptocurrency is called Dogecoin. rle/ev/md/sms/mdSome consumers learn they'd have to bundle to keep their insurance policy