The moment a SpaceX Starship rocket exploded into a gigantic fireball.   Courtesy Andrew C @therocketfuture

Dear Commons Community,

As Elon Musk returns his focus to his businesses, one of his most important companies just had another setback: A SpaceX Starship rocket exploded in an immense fireball Wednesday during a routine ground test.

The explosion marks the fourth failure in a row for SpaceX’s Starship, all while Musk’s other companies and his personal brand struggle to recover after his foray into politics.

Starship is supposed to help reach NASA’s goal of bringing American astronauts back to the moon by 2027: The US space agency is paying SpaceX up to about $4 billion for the mission. Although SpaceX has said that the last three launches before Wednesday’s explosions were successful in testing some elements, all ended in mid-flight failures.   As reported by CNN.

SpaceX has long made the case that failures during the testing and development phase are not the harbingers of disaster they may seem. The company embraces a design philosophy called “rapid iterative development” that emphasizes building relatively low-cost prototypes and launching frequent test flights. SpaceX believes the approach allows the company to hash out rocket designs faster and at cheaper price points than relying on slower, more methodical engineering approaches that can guarantee a vehicle’s success.

But the very fiery Starship explosion comes as Musk has been trying to restore his reputation as he returned to focus on his businesses after a controversial stint in the Trump administration. After several months as a top White House adviser and leading the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk is now taking a step back from full-time government work refocusing his time on his companies, including Tesla, which has struggled in part as a result of Musk’s alliance with the Trump administration.

Upon his return, Musk has sought to promote an image of safety and reliability at Tesla, which is aiming to launch its driverless robotaxis in Austin on Sunday – although the initial phase is expected to be limited less than two dozen cars and Musk has warned the date could shift.

But before the launch, a group of Texas lawmakers have asked Tesla to delay the roll out of its robotaxi service until September, citing a new law on autonomous driving set to take effect. And Tesla’s share price slipped this week, before recovering somewhat, following a report from Business Insider that the company plans to pause production on Cybertruck and Model Y lines for a week at its Austin factory for maintenance, the third such shutdown this year. And in Europe, where Tesla sales have been plunging, Chinese car maker BYD sold more pure battery electric vehicles over Tesla in Europe for the first time, according to a report from JATO, an automotive market research firm.

Musk also has his work cut out for him at his AI company, xAI. Bloomberg reported the company “is burning through $1 billion a month” as the cost of building out its AI model “races ahead of the limited revenues.”

Musk brushed off the report. “Bloomberg is talking nonsense,” he posted on X in response.

Musk also publicly disputed his own AI chatbot Grok, when it posted a fact check about politically motivated violence, noting that “Since 2016, data suggests right-wing political violence has been more frequent and deadly.” That response lines up with most publicly available data.

But Musk didn’t agree. “Major fail, as this is objectively false. Grok is parroting legacy media. Working on it.” he posted.

Musk seems to be brushing off the setbacks, especially with SpaceX. He said last month that he hoped Starship would make its inaugural flight to Mars by the end of next year — a target that looks increasingly unlikely to be met.

“Just a scratch,” he posted after Starship’s explosion before posting “RIP Ship 36” and memes.

When a user asked Musk’s chatbot Grok why Musk was posting memes, Grok responded “The timing suggests it’s likely a humorous comment on the SpaceX Starship explosion that occurred on June 18, rather than targeting a specific person. Musk often uses memes to downplay such setbacks.” Musk responded with a bullseye emoji.

Try, try again.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld laws in roughly half the states that ban gender affirming medical care for transgender minors. The vote was 6-3, along ideological lines.

The case was brought by transgender children and their parents in Tennessee who claimed that the state’s ban on hormone treatments and puberty blockers for transgender minors discriminated on the basis of sex. They contended that they were being denied equal protection of the law because the same medications that are banned for minors with gender dysphoria, are permitted for other minors with conditions such as endometriosis and early or late onset puberty.

But writing for the conservative court’s supermajority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that argument entirely.  

He said that laws like Tennessee’s that turn on age or medical use, are not subject to the kind of heightened legal scrutiny that courts use to look at workplace sex discrimination, for instance. Instead, the court applied the lowest level of legal scrutiny, called rational basis, meaning that if there is any rational justification for the law, it passes constitutional muster.  As reported by NPR.

Acknowledging what he called “the fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” Roberts said that it is not the court’s job to judge “the wisdom or fairness” of Tennessee’s law.

The court’s job, he said, is only to determine whether the law violates the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. Having concluded that the law does not unconstitutionally discriminate, he said, the court leaves these policy questions “to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

Reaction to the decision was swift. “There’s no sugar coating this opinion,” said Jennifer Levi, a senior director at GLAD Law, an advocacy organization for LGBTQ rights. “It means that in more than half the states where the care is banned, families won’t be able to get the care that their children need.”

“The court really abdicated its responsibility to protect a vulnerable group,” she added.

In a rare dissent, read from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed that sentiment. Because the Tennessee law explicitly classifies its ban on the basis of sex and transgender status, she said, both the constitution and precedent require that the court subject the law to a higher level of scrutiny.

Instead, she said, the majority “contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise,” retreating from meaningful judicial review “exactly when it matters most.”

To make her point, Sotomayor noted that judicial scrutiny has long played an essential role in guarding against legislative efforts to impose the state’s view on how people of a particular race or sex should live, or look or act. Pointing to what she called a “hauntingly familiar passage” in Virginia’s 1967 brief defending its ban on interracial marriage, Sotomayor noted that the court did not “defer to the wisdom of the state legislature.” Indeed, the court’s 1967 landmark ruling struck down the ban on interracial marriage.

Contrary to that decision, she said that the court now abandons children and their families to “political whims,” adding, “In sadness, I dissent.”

Joining her in full was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Elena Kagan partially joined. She too would have required a higher level of scrutiny, but she would have stopped there. Given the extensive, and disputed evidence presented in the lower courts, she said, the court should have sent the case back down to determine whether the state law was based on stereotypes and prejudices or legitimate state interests.

While the court’s majority opinion gave states broad powers to ban or regulate transgender medical care for minors, it left unresolved a number of questions that very likely will reach the Supreme Court next term.

Among them is a challenge to the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people in the military, and a challenge to the administration’s policy denying passports for transgender individuals, unless they list as their gender as their sex at birth.

Also not resolved by Wednesday’s ruling are cases involving bans on transgender participation in school sports. Federal law bars discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding.

John Bursch, who argued and won the case on behalf of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom said that “about half the states have adopted laws that prohibit boys who identify as girls from participating in girls sports teams.”

As he noted, two of those cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Farther down the road is another question — whether states can ban medical care for transitioning adults.

“I think there would be a rational basis to also prohibit it for adults, and that would be up to the states to decide,” said Bursch.

The court will be back today with more opinions.

Tony

Sam Altman. Getty Images | Justin Sullivan

Dear Commons Community,

One of the major deterrents to the development and advancement of generative AI is a lack of sufficient computing power. That is, aside from the privacy and safety concerns that could potentially contribute to the end of humanity.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently made an appearance at one of American Micro Devices (AMD) recent artificial intelligence conferences, admitting that AI development will require an exorbitant amount of electricity to power its advances (via LaptopMag).

AMD CEO Lisa Su’s keynote at the Advancing AI 2025 conference asked Altman whether the recent and recurrent ChatGPT outages are related to GPU shortages. According to OpenAI’s CEO:

“Theoretically, at some points, you can see that a significant fraction of the power on Earth should be spent running AI compute. And maybe we’re going to get there.”

OpenAI is essentially suffering from a GPU problem. After it launched its new GPT-4o image generator in waves, the company quickly made the executive decision to delay a full rollout of the tool.

GPT-4o’s image generation capabilities turned out to be a hit among most users to the extent of adding one million new ChatGPT users in less than one hour, predominantly due to viral Studio Ghibli “inspired” memes that flooded social media earlier this year.

Sam Altman jokingly indicated that the viral Ghibli memes were causing OpenAI’s GPUs to “melt“, further urging users to dial down their image generations. The executive went on to say that the high demand for its image generator tool prompted OpenAI to do unnatural things to mitigate the issue, including temporarily introducing rate limits, borrowing compute power from its research division, and slowing down the shipment of new features

In a separate interview, Altman claimed:

“It’s not like we have hundreds of thousands of GPUs sitting around just like spinning idly.”

OpenAI appears to now have enough GPUs to power its advances, and the company is in a position to better handle demand surges from viral moments, such as the Ghibli memes frenzy.

More recently, Sam Altman revealed that “ChatGPT is already more powerful than any human who has ever lived.” However, he revealed that the chatbot uses 0.34 watt-hours, “about what an oven would use in a little over one second, or a high-efficiency lightbulb would use in a couple of minutes.” He further detailed that the AI tool consumes 0.000085 gallons of water per query.

Something else to be concerned about with AI.

Tony

Emancipation Day celebration, June 19, 1900, held  in Austin, Texas. Credit: Austin History Center.

Dear Commons Community,

Today we celebrate Juneteenth, commemorating the freeing of enslaved African Americans in our country. Below is a brief background on this event courtesy of the National Museum of African American  History and Culture.

Tony

The Historical Legacy of Juneteenth

On “Freedom’s Eve,” or the eve of January 1, 1863, the first Watch Night services took place. On that night, enslaved and free African Americans gathered in churches and private homes all across the country awaiting news that the Emancipation Proclamation had taken effect. At the stroke of midnight, prayers were answered as all enslaved people in Confederate States were declared legally free. Union soldiers, many of whom were black, marched onto plantations and across cities in the south reading small copies of the Emancipation Proclamation spreading the news of freedom in Confederate States. Only through the Thirteenth Amendment did emancipation end slavery throughout the United States.

But not everyone in Confederate territory would immediately be free. Even though the Emancipation Proclamation was made effective in 1863, it could not be implemented in places still under Confederate control. As a result, in the westernmost Confederate state of Texas, enslaved people would not be free until much later. Freedom finally came on June 19, 1865, when some 2,000 Union troops arrived in Galveston Bay, Texas. The army announced that the more than 250,000 enslaved black people in the state, were free by executive decree. This day came to be known as “Juneteenth,” by the newly freed people in Texas. \

Juneteenth marks our country’s second independence day. Although it has long been celebrated in the African American community, this monumental event remains largely unknown to most Americans.

The historical legacy of Juneteenth shows the value of never giving up hope in uncertain times. The National Museum of African American History and Culture is a community space where this spirit of hope lives on. A place where historical events like Juneteenth are shared and new stories with equal urgency are told.

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty

Dear Commons Community,

Biographer Michael Wolff revealed yesterday that Trump was unhappy with his sparsely attended military parade over the weekend and blamed it on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, 

Wolff told The Daily Beast Podcast that Trump wanted a “menacing” show of force to celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary and his 79th birthday on Saturday—but got a “festive” parade instead.

“He’s p—ed off at the soldiers,” Wolff said. “He’s accusing them of hamming it up, and by that, he seems to mean that they were having a good time, that they were waving, that they were enjoying themselves and showing a convivial face rather than a military face.”

As thousands of soldiers flanked by tanks made their way past empty bleachers along Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., social media users pointed out that the soldiers were marching out of sync, and the muted atmosphere appeared to match the gloomy weather.

That didn’t escape Trump, who pointed the finger at his defense secretary, according to Wolff.

“He kind of reamed out Hegseth for this,” the Trump biographer said. “Apparently, there was a phone call, and he said to Hegseth, the tone was all wrong. Why was the tone wrong? Who staged this? There was the tone problem. Trump, he keeps repeating himself.”

“It didn’t send the message that he apparently wanted, which is that he was the commander in chief of this menacing enterprise,” Wolff added.

Publicly, Trump has insisted that his parade was a “tremendous” success even after it was overshadowed by “No Kings” demonstrations across the country, which drew in millions of Americans who protested against the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.

Trump’ parade showed the world that he is a crass individual who has not learned that respect and leadership is based on what is in one’s heart and brains not in military machines. And in Trump world, there has to be a fall guy and Hegseth was it.

Tony

Amazon.com Inc. Chief Executive Andy Jassy

Dear Commons Community,

To survive as artificial intelligence transforms the workforce, employees should get to know the technology well.

That’s according to Amazon.com Inc. Chief Executive Andy Jassy, who outlined yesterday the ways that AI will change how people work at the e-commerce giant — and more broadly.

“Want to keep your job at Amazon? We suggest taking Andy’s advice,” Baird analyst Colin Sebastian wrote in a note to clients. He pointed to Jassy’s recommendations that employees “be curious about AI, educate yourself, attend workshops and take trainings, use and experiment with AI whenever you can, participate in your team’s brainstorms to figure out how to invent for our customers more quickly and expansively, and how to get more done with scrappier teams.”

Amazon had about 1.56 million full- and part-time employees as of the end of 2024, according to its latest annual report. That was up from roughly 1.53 million at the end of 2023.

Jassy’s commentary comes as other companies are stepping up their AI efforts, and their talk around them. Duolingo Inc. recently shared to LinkedIn a note from its CEO, who proclaimed that the language-instruction company was becoming “AI-first.”

“We’ll gradually stop using contractors to do work that AI can handle,” CEO Luis von Ahn said in the post. He noted that Duolingo would also look for AI use when making hiring decisions, and allocate more headcount to teams only if they could show that they couldn’t automate more tasks.

That said, he later took to his own page to clarify the original post.

“I do not see AI as replacing what our employees do (we are in fact continuing to hire at the same speed as before),” von Ahn wrote. “I see it as a tool to accelerate what we do, at the same or better level of quality. And the sooner we learn how to use it, and use it responsibly, the better off we will be in the long run.”

As Amazon goes, so will many other companies!

Tony

Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times editorial board has weighed in on the city’s crowded mayoral race, urging voters not to back state Assembly member Zohran Mamdani in next week’s Democratic primary despite not directly endorsing another candidate.

The Times’s editorial board, which announced last year that it would no longer endorse in local and state elections, made clear yesterday that despite its lack of formal endorsement, it believes voters should not rank Mamdani in any of the spots on the ballot. 

New York City elections use ranked choice voting, allowing voters to list up to five candidates in order of their preference to support. 

“Mr. Mamdani, a charismatic 33-year-old, is running a joyful campaign full of viral videos in which he talks with voters. He offers the kind of fresh political style for which many people are hungry during the angry era of President Trump,” the board said. “Unfortunately, Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city’s challenges.” 

The board argued the field, made up of 11 candidates, lacks anyone who seems likely to be the city’s “next great mayor,” but several candidates have “substantial strengths.” It acknowledged that polls seem to show the race is between Mamdani and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who has been the front-runner since entering the race but whose lead over Mamdani has shrunk considerably.

The board criticized Mamdani’s lack of experience and policy proposals, saying he “too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance.” It argued his calls for rent freezes could restrict the housing supply, rejected his support for government-run grocery stores and accused him of minimizing the importance of police.

It also raised issues with Mamdani having never run a government department or a private organization previously and a lack of execution of his agenda as a state legislator, a role he’s held since 2021. 

“Mr. Mamdani, who has called [former Mayor Bill] de Blasio the best New York mayor of his lifetime, offers an agenda that remains alluring among elite progressives but has proved damaging to city life,” the editorial states. 

The Hill has reached out to Mamdani’s campaign for comment.

The board said Cuomo also has “significant shortcomings,” citing his resignation as governor after multiple women made allegations of sexual harassment or undesired touching against him. Cuomo has consistently denied the accusations. 

The board also noted the criticisms of Cuomo’s handling of nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic and oversight of public transit. But it acknowledged many seem to intend to vote for him because of his policy record as governor, including raising the minimum wage, implementing paid family leave, legalizing same-sex marriage in 2011 and overseeing renovations of the city’s airports and train station. 

The editorial states city Comptroller Brad Lander, who has been among the next tier of candidates in polling, is an alternative to Cuomo and Mamdani. It praised Lander for moderating on certain stances, showing a “welcome ability to learn from experience” and effectively managing his office. 

The editorial board said it sees arguments for ranking several candidates, including Lander for progressive voters and a candidate such as businessman Whitney Tilson for moderate voters. But given the polls, it noted if and where voters rank Cuomo and Mamdani relative to each other may be what decides the election.

“We do not believe that Mr. Mamdani deserves a spot on New Yorkers’ ballots,” the board said. “His experience is too thin, and his agenda reads like a turbocharged version of Mr. de Blasio’s dismaying mayoralty. As for Mr. Cuomo, we have serious objections to his ethics and conduct, even if he would be better for New York’s future than Mr. Mamdani.” 

But not ranking either candidate, it said, would be the equivalent of stating no preference between the two.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Matthew W. Finkin, emeritus professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the author of For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom, had an essay in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, “The Unraveling of the AAUP:  This organization no longer knows what it stands for.”  See:  Opinion | The Unraveling of the AAUP

Here is an excerpt.

“An article on threats to academic freedom on college campuses in last week’s New York Times Magazine touched on a running debate between the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The former has long been the expositor of the meaning of academic freedom; the latter is active in litigating free-speech cases. The quarrel between the two organizations raises some hard questions about the AAUP’s current role.

From its founding in 1915, the AAUP has gained the respect of the academic community and of the judiciary in explicating the meaning and application of academic freedom and tenure. Its work has had a significant impact on both. Its credibility has been earned by the consistent adherence to principle uninfluenced by exogenous policies or organizational ends, and by the sheer quality of its work. The latter was captured a half century ago by Judge J. Skelly Wright, who noted the “thoroughness and scrupulous care” in the AAUP documents placed before the court.

Recent actions have departed from these standards — and radically. The AAUP, acting through its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, has, first, abandoned its prior position that systematic participation in the boycott of Israeli universities could threaten academic freedom and, second, declared that adherence to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) dictates as a condition of faculty retention can be consistent with academic freedom. These actions reveal a body now driven by considerations other than fidelity to principle. As a result, the deep well of communal respect has been drained dry; the AAUP’s credibility has been destroyed.”

Finkin’s conclusion:

“It seems inevitable that sometime, somewhere, one or more instructors will not be reappointed for no reason other than the failure to satisfy a DEI requirement. It seems equally inevitable that at least one housed in a public university will contest the decision on constitutional grounds; and, in that event, that the AAUP will appear before the court as amicus curiae. In that case, it would be expected that the AAUP will address the court much along this line:

‘We appear before this court as the repository of a century’s thoughtful engagement with the meaning and significance of academic freedom, to bring our considered judgment, expressed in the Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Criteria for Faculty Evaluation, to the court’s attention and to argue in support of it.’

To which the only frank response a court could make is: “You are the successor in title, but no longer in principle, spirit, or scrupulous care.”

Finkin’s essay was adapted from an article originally published in Telos Insights.

Tony

Randi Weingarten

Dear Commons Community,

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten is departing the Democratic National Committee (DNC), citing disagreements with DNC Chair Ken Martin.

Weingarten told Martin in a letter dated June 5 and obtained by The Hill on Sunday that she was declining to be reappointed as an at-large member of the committee.

“While I am a proud Democrat, I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our community,” wrote Weingarten, who has served as a DNC member for 23 years.

Weingarten backed then-Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler to serve as DNC chair during elections earlier this year. Weingarten was later removed by Martin from the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. 

A source close to the DNC told The Hill they were not surprised by Weingarten’s move to step down, noting her differences with Martin. 

“Ever since the horse she bet on in the Chairs race lost, she has always been on the other side of the fence as Ken — this is no surprise,” the source said. 

A longtime Democratic strategist criticized Weingarten’s resignation for being poorly timed, alluding to the weekend “No Kings” protests across the country with large crowds turning out to criticize President Trump’s administration.

“Especially when the country just showed up by the millions across all demographic and geographic boundaries to take on Trump grassroots style it’s flabbergasting to me that a senior DNC member, much less one as supposedly committed as Randi, would take the moment to make it all-about-her,” the strategist said. “Today, party leadership should figure out how to not just ride a wave but lead a movement, not continue with internecine persona-driven drama.”

Weingarten is a powerful figure on the political left. The AFT boasts roughly 1.8 million members and has significant influence on the Democratic Party and its candidates. 

Her exit comes as the DNC has had to grapple with internal divisions being laid bare in recent weeks. Former DNC Vice Chair David Hogg has been vocally critical of the party’s leadership, writing in a post on the social platform X last week that the party’s leaders have been “asleep at the wheel.” 

The infighting has threatened to stall the party’s efforts to rebuild seven months after Trump won a second term.

Hogg faced backlash from many Democrats, including from within the DNC, for launching an organization that would primary incumbent House Democrats in an effort to bring about generational change within the party.

Hogg said he would not be vying for his spot as vice chair in the DNC after an overwhelming majority of DNC committee members voted to redo the vice chair elections of Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, who was elected again to the post on Saturday.

Weingarten’s departure from the DNC is just another indication that the national Democratic Party is in trouble.

Tony

Vance Boelter. Credit: FBI

Dear Commons Community,

The Associated Press is reporting that Vance Luther Boelter, the man accused of assassinating Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, held deeply religious and politically conservative views, telling a congregation in Africa two years ago that the U.S. was in a “bad place” where most churches didn’t oppose abortion.

Boelter, 57, was captured late yesterday following a two-day manhunt authorities described as the largest in the state’s history. Boelter is accused of impersonating a police officer and gunning down former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, in their home outside Minneapolis. Democratic Gov. Tim Walz described the shooting as “a politically motivated assassination.”

Sen. John Hoffman, also a Democrat, and his wife, Yvette, were shot earlier by the same gunman at their home nearby but survived.

Friends and former colleagues interviewed by AP described Boelter as a devout Christian who attended an evangelical church and went to campaign rallies for President Donald Trump. Records show Boelter registered to vote as a Republican while living in Oklahoma in 2004 before moving to Minnesota where voters don’t list party affiliation.

Near the scene at Hortman’s home, authorities say they found an SUV made to look like those used by law enforcement. Inside they found fliers for a local anti-Trump “No Kings” rally scheduled for Saturday and a notebook with names of other lawmakers. The list also included the names of abortion rights advocates and health care officials, according to two law enforcement officials who could not discuss details of the ongoing investigation and spoke to AP on condition of anonymity.

Both Hortman and Hoffman were defenders of abortion rights at the state legislature.

Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said at a briefing on Sunday that Boelter is not believed to have made any public threats before the attacks. Evans asked the public not to speculate on a motivation for the attacks. “We often want easy answers for complex problems,” he told reporters. “Those answers will come as we complete the full picture of our investigation.”

Friends told the AP that they knew Boelter was religious and conservative, but that he didn’t talk about politics often and didn’t seem extreme.

“He was right-leaning politically but never fanatical, from what I saw, just strong beliefs,” said Paul Schroeder, who has known Boelter for years.

Boelter, who worked as a security contractor, gave a glimpse of his beliefs on abortion during a trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2023. While there, Boelter served as an evangelical pastor, telling people he had first found Jesus as a teenager.

“The churches are so messed up, they don’t know abortion is wrong in many churches,” he said, according to an online recording of one sermon from February 2023. Still, in three lengthy sermons reviewed by the AP, he only mentioned abortion once, focusing more on his love of God and what he saw as the moral decay in his native country.

He appears to have hidden his more strident beliefs from his friends back home.

“He never talked to me about abortion,” Schroeder said. “It seemed to be just that he was a conservative Republican who naturally followed Trump.”

A married father with five children, Boelter and his wife own a sprawling 3,800-square-foot house on a large rural lot about an hour from downtown Minneapolis that the couple bought in 2023 for more than a half-million dollars.

Tony