August 3, 2025

Support the fight for voting rights by staying informed. Get exclusive content and help power independent journalism that believes in democracy. Upgrade today.

I have been the subject of many spurious accusations and politically motivated attacks, but this one is in a class by itself. According to Tulsi Gabbard — the nation’s top intelligence official — my refusal to post on Twitter is being reviewed by the Department of Justice as evidence of wrongdoing.

If that sounds preposterous, it is. If you don’t believe it’s true, neither do I.

The question is: why did she say it, and what does it mean for the Trump administration’s weaponization of government?

I became aware of the latest conspiracy theory in an unusual way: as a question on a pro-democracy podcast. Within minutes of sitting down with Tim Miller for The xxxxxx podcast last Thursday, he asked about the right wing’s latest attack on me: “I don't know if you've seen this. Glenn Beck says that ‘Marc Elias has stopped posting on X, John Kerry privated his account and Peter Strzok deleted his account. Is the deep state panicking?’”

Miller asked jokingly, “Are you the deep state, and are you panicking?” I responded with a laugh: “Do I look panicked?”

Sadly, over the last several years, I’ve become accustomed to the attacks and laughing them off. As far back as 2018, Donald Trump described me on social media as the Democratic Party’s “best election-stealing lawyer.” Earlier this year, he told officials at the Department of Justice that another lawyer and I were “bad people, really bad people” and “radicals” trying “to turn America into a corrupt, communist, third-world country.”

Even worse than Trump himself? His prominent (and vocal) supporters. In 2023, Kash Patel — who is not the FBI Director — called me “the enemy of the Republican Party.” Steven Bannon has said I am “pure evil.”

Earlier this year, in February, Elon Musk — who at the time was still palling around with Trump  — used his social media platform to proclaim that I was “undermining civilization.” He wondered if I had suffered “childhood trauma.” I wrote an open letter in response.

Some of the attacks have been threatening. Others are simply bizarre.

Shortly before the November 2024 election, a group I later learned was funded in part by Musk took out a full-page ad in The Washington Post, accusing me of being involved in “racist voter suppression lawsuits” and trying to “disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters.” The same group rented mobile billboards to drive around Washington, D.C., displaying my photo with a similar message.

Each time I’m targeted, the volume of hate I receive — online and in correspondence — spikes. Some of it is deranged. Much of it is antisemitic. And it’s deeply conspiratorial.

Like Beck, many of the purveyors of these lies accuse me of being part of the “deep state.” I’ve never worked in government and have no ties to U.S. national security agencies.

Another common theme is that I’m a “globalist.” That, too, is a strange claim. All my work is domestic. I don’t work in financial services, and I don’t particularly like to travel.

Over time, I’ve come to understand that terms like “deep state,” “globalist,” and “elites” are often coded language for “Jewish Democrat.” There was a time when I engaged with — and even mocked — those who posted these absurd theories. But as Twitter descended into a cesspool of hate, I disengaged. I no longer post regularly on the platform, and I routinely block trolls on Bluesky. I’ve accepted that this is the price of being a prominent critic of Trump in 2025.

After my podcast interview with Miller, I looked up the social media post he had referenced. That’s when I realized the full scope of the accusation being leveled against me.

Beck was interviewing Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. His question about the “deep state” was posed to the very person who coordinates the most sensitive classified information for the U.S. government. If anyone runs the deep state, it’s Gabbard.

One might expect a person in her position to correct Beck — or at least resist fueling a false narrative. Instead, Gabbard agreed: “That’s the only way I can read this situation. Those who are truly innocent would not be taking those kinds of actions.” She went on to suggest that the Department of Justice is reviewing the matter “to bring about accountability to those involved.”

Taken literally, the nation’s top intelligence official announced — on a right-wing podcast — that my decision to stop posting on Twitter is evidence that I am not “innocent” and am therefore being reviewed by the DOJ, with the aim of holding me “accountable.”

What Gabbard said is almost certainly untrue. I have no reason to believe I am under investigation, nor that my refusal to post on Twitter is evidence of guilt.

That brings us back to my original question: why did she say it? 

Since Trump took office, we’ve become accustomed not only to his lies, but to his entire administration promoting false conspiracy theories. Gabbard knows the script. She knows what a right-wing audience likes to hear. That’s why she leaned in — and leaned in hard. Sure, my lack of Twitter activity is under criminal investigation, why not! Who cares what’s true or not true anymore? This is obviously not normal, and it’s very dangerous.

Since Trump stepped back into the Oval Office, we have quickly developed a warped sense of what is acceptable conduct from government officials. It goes without saying: if Joe Biden’s director of national intelligence had made a similar claim about a Republican lawyer, it would have been treated as a scandal. Now, it’s largely shrugged off.

These accusations are also dangerous because it allows conspiracy theories to be weaponized against Trump’s political opponents. What if Pam Bondi did decide to open an investigation into why I stopped posting on Twitter? Would the legacy media treat it with outrage or with skeptical bemusement? Would any Republican in Congress criticize the attorney general for such a blatant abuse of power? Would Big Law issue statements of condemnation?

Or would everyone just look away and hope it doesn’t happen to them next?

In retrospect, I wish I had answered Tim Miller’s question differently. So, here’s my revised answer:

No, I am not panicking. I am outraged.

I am outraged that our government is run by people with no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.

I am outraged that the sycophants who run this administration are loyal only to Trump.

I am outraged that so few people in positions of power are willing to speak up when they see abuses — people dragged off the street and put into foreign gulags, government agencies illegally dismantled and the military on our city streets.

I am outraged that the entire Republican Party is filled with cowards.

I am outraged that our institutions — major media companies, law firms and universities — would rather bend a knee than stand tall and fight.

And I am outraged that the price of standing up to Trump — of standing for democracy — is to be subjected to endless lies, attacks and false accusations by people who know better.

I enjoy Tim’s podcast — both as a guest and a regular listener. Perhaps next time he has me on, we can start here.

Fighting voter suppression takes more than just headlines — it takes facts, legal expertise and fearless journalism. Join our mission by upgrading to premium for $120/year and get exclusive updates from Marc and our newsroom.