During both the first and now the second term of President Donald Trump, commentators in the U.S. have invoked the king's misdeeds to criticize Trump. When the president bypassed Congress to create a new government agency, appointed its head and stopped payment of millions of dollars of allocated federal funds, his critics noted that he assumed the role of Congress, a power grab that supposedly made him similar to George III. According to this criticism, the president engaged in tyranny, just as the founders accused George of doing. In the 1770s, the power of the British king was limited by the authority of Parliament. In that system, which Americans and others praised at the time as balanced, the king and the legislature each had specific duties and powers so that neither could control the government alone. George III was not an absolutist monarch, to use the language of the day for a power-hungry ruler. The English had struggled in the previous century over the extent of the king's power. After fighting two civil wars, executing one king, and, eventually, forcing the monarch to agree to rule with Parliament rather than on his own, they believed their liberties were safeguarded....

Editor's note: This search tool is part of The Atlantic's investigation into the Library Genesis data set. You can read an analysis about LibGen and its contents here. Find The Atlantic's search tool for movie and television writing used to train AI here. Disclaimer: LibGen contains errors. You may, for example, find books that list incorrect authors. This search tool is meant to reflect material that could be used to train AI programs, and that includes material containing mistakes and inaccuracies. It's impossible to know exactly which parts of LibGen Meta used to train its AI, and which parts it might have decided to exclude; this snapshot was taken in January 2025, after Meta is known to have accessed the database, so some titles here would not have been available to download....

An analyst who is one of the biggest boosters of Tesla on Wall Street says Elon Musk is facing a 'moment of truth' at his EV company because of a 'crisis' he's created by spending so much time in the Trump administration. 'If you agree or disagree with DOGE it misses the point that by Musk spending 110% of his time with DOGE (and not as Tesla CEO) since President Trump got back into the White House this has essentially turned Tesla into a political symbol'. and this is a bad thing,' Ives wrote. This has led to what Ives described as a 'brand tornado crisis moment for Musk and Tesla.' Ives' plea comes as Tesla's stock price has fallen to around $230 ' less than half its all-time peak in late December of around $480, and lower than it was before Trump got elected. Protests against the company are growing worldwide, and the level of vandalism against Tesla's vehicles and stores has increased so much that it prompted the new administration to label the actions as 'domestic terrorism.' Ives used similar language in a note published earlier in March, but couched it in a more optimistic tone, saying he believed the company was at the 'start of the biggest innovation and technology cycle in Tesla's history.'...

X has long chaffed at government orders to remove or block content in the country, such as during the farmers' protests last year. Though it ended up complying with those executive orders, citing the risk of substantial penalties, it did also file a legal challenge. Now it's further stepping up opposition to state censorship efforts via fresh litigation. According to a court filing X made earlier this month, the company has accused the Indian government of creating an unlawful mechanism through which 'countless' public officials can execute content takedown or blocking orders via a website that social media companies should regularly check. Per Reuters, X's lawsuit alleges that this mechanism fails to meet Indian legal safeguards on content removal that require such orders 'to be issued in cases such as harm to sovereignty or public order, and ' with strict oversight of top officials.' X claims the website creates 'an impermissible parallel mechanism' that causes 'unrestrained censorship of information in India,' according to the news agency's report of its filing. The company is hoping to use a legal route to quash the directive, it said....