SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Elon Musk sits next to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 10, 2025.
"The glaring conflict of interest inherent in this pressure to preference a Musk-owned company is disgusting," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert.
Trump administration officials have reportedly been pressuring countries facing U.S. tariffs to approve satellite internet services offered by Elon Musk's Starlink to help grease trade negotiations, further underscoring the conflicts of interest stemming from the mega-billionaire's proximity to the White House.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that it obtained "a series of internal government messages" that "reveal how U.S. embassies and the State Department have pushed nations to clear hurdles for U.S. satellite companies, often mentioning Starlink by name."
"The documents do not show that the Trump team has explicitly demanded favors for Starlink in exchange for lower tariffs," the newspaper added. "But they do indicate that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has increasingly instructed officials to push for regulatory approvals for Musk's satellite firm at a moment when the White House is calling for wide-ranging talks on trade."
The Post points specifically to ongoing bilateral trade negotiations between the U.S. and India, where "government officials have sped through approvals of Starlink with the understanding that doing so could help them cement trade deals with the administration."
The Times of India reported Wednesday that Starlink, a subsidiary of Musk's SpaceX, "has been issued a Letter of Intent by the Indian government for satcom services."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the U.S.-based consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in response to the Post's reporting that "the glaring conflict of interest inherent in this pressure to preference a Musk-owned company is disgusting."
"The bottom line here is that tools of trade and government should be utilized for the benefit of the American public, not abused for personal tech bro profiteering," Gilbert added.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the revelations "a huge new scandal."
"Trump and Musk are using tariffs as leverage to get other countries to buy from Musk's companies. Working families pay
$4,000+ more a year so Musk gets new deals," Casar wrote on social media. "They get richer. Everyone else gets screwed."
Last month, U.S. President Donald Trumppartially paused the more aggressive tariffs he sought to impose on countries around the world while leaving in place 10% across-the-board import duties, which are already raising costs for American families.
The Post reported Wednesday that "at least two countries have explicitly discussed or moved toward adopting Musk's Starlink as a means of avoiding Trump’s tariffs and negotiating a better trade deal with the United States."
Cambodia, which is facing a potential 49% tariff rate, appears to be one of those countries. The Post obtained a U.S. embassy cable indicating that Cambodian officials have signaled a "desire to help balance our trade relationship by promoting the market entry of leading U.S. companies such as Boeing and Starlink."
"Another cable from April 17 reported that Starlink was pushing for a license to operate in Djibouti," the newspaper reported. "Embassy staffers wrote they would help Starlink as much as they could: 'Post will continue to follow up with Starlink in identifying government officials and facilitating discussions.'"
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said the internal cables show "gross corruption." Congressional Democrats are already probing the White House's use of Starlink services.
"Surprise, surprise: another Trump move that directly benefits Elon Musk—the guy who spent $260 million to elect Donald Trump and has been given the keys to the federal government," said Van Hollen. "They are rigging the government for themselves."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Trump administration officials have reportedly been pressuring countries facing U.S. tariffs to approve satellite internet services offered by Elon Musk's Starlink to help grease trade negotiations, further underscoring the conflicts of interest stemming from the mega-billionaire's proximity to the White House.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that it obtained "a series of internal government messages" that "reveal how U.S. embassies and the State Department have pushed nations to clear hurdles for U.S. satellite companies, often mentioning Starlink by name."
"The documents do not show that the Trump team has explicitly demanded favors for Starlink in exchange for lower tariffs," the newspaper added. "But they do indicate that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has increasingly instructed officials to push for regulatory approvals for Musk's satellite firm at a moment when the White House is calling for wide-ranging talks on trade."
The Post points specifically to ongoing bilateral trade negotiations between the U.S. and India, where "government officials have sped through approvals of Starlink with the understanding that doing so could help them cement trade deals with the administration."
The Times of India reported Wednesday that Starlink, a subsidiary of Musk's SpaceX, "has been issued a Letter of Intent by the Indian government for satcom services."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the U.S.-based consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in response to the Post's reporting that "the glaring conflict of interest inherent in this pressure to preference a Musk-owned company is disgusting."
"The bottom line here is that tools of trade and government should be utilized for the benefit of the American public, not abused for personal tech bro profiteering," Gilbert added.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the revelations "a huge new scandal."
"Trump and Musk are using tariffs as leverage to get other countries to buy from Musk's companies. Working families pay
$4,000+ more a year so Musk gets new deals," Casar wrote on social media. "They get richer. Everyone else gets screwed."
Last month, U.S. President Donald Trumppartially paused the more aggressive tariffs he sought to impose on countries around the world while leaving in place 10% across-the-board import duties, which are already raising costs for American families.
The Post reported Wednesday that "at least two countries have explicitly discussed or moved toward adopting Musk's Starlink as a means of avoiding Trump’s tariffs and negotiating a better trade deal with the United States."
Cambodia, which is facing a potential 49% tariff rate, appears to be one of those countries. The Post obtained a U.S. embassy cable indicating that Cambodian officials have signaled a "desire to help balance our trade relationship by promoting the market entry of leading U.S. companies such as Boeing and Starlink."
"Another cable from April 17 reported that Starlink was pushing for a license to operate in Djibouti," the newspaper reported. "Embassy staffers wrote they would help Starlink as much as they could: 'Post will continue to follow up with Starlink in identifying government officials and facilitating discussions.'"
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said the internal cables show "gross corruption." Congressional Democrats are already probing the White House's use of Starlink services.
"Surprise, surprise: another Trump move that directly benefits Elon Musk—the guy who spent $260 million to elect Donald Trump and has been given the keys to the federal government," said Van Hollen. "They are rigging the government for themselves."
Trump administration officials have reportedly been pressuring countries facing U.S. tariffs to approve satellite internet services offered by Elon Musk's Starlink to help grease trade negotiations, further underscoring the conflicts of interest stemming from the mega-billionaire's proximity to the White House.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that it obtained "a series of internal government messages" that "reveal how U.S. embassies and the State Department have pushed nations to clear hurdles for U.S. satellite companies, often mentioning Starlink by name."
"The documents do not show that the Trump team has explicitly demanded favors for Starlink in exchange for lower tariffs," the newspaper added. "But they do indicate that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has increasingly instructed officials to push for regulatory approvals for Musk's satellite firm at a moment when the White House is calling for wide-ranging talks on trade."
The Post points specifically to ongoing bilateral trade negotiations between the U.S. and India, where "government officials have sped through approvals of Starlink with the understanding that doing so could help them cement trade deals with the administration."
The Times of India reported Wednesday that Starlink, a subsidiary of Musk's SpaceX, "has been issued a Letter of Intent by the Indian government for satcom services."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the U.S.-based consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in response to the Post's reporting that "the glaring conflict of interest inherent in this pressure to preference a Musk-owned company is disgusting."
"The bottom line here is that tools of trade and government should be utilized for the benefit of the American public, not abused for personal tech bro profiteering," Gilbert added.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the revelations "a huge new scandal."
"Trump and Musk are using tariffs as leverage to get other countries to buy from Musk's companies. Working families pay
$4,000+ more a year so Musk gets new deals," Casar wrote on social media. "They get richer. Everyone else gets screwed."
Last month, U.S. President Donald Trumppartially paused the more aggressive tariffs he sought to impose on countries around the world while leaving in place 10% across-the-board import duties, which are already raising costs for American families.
The Post reported Wednesday that "at least two countries have explicitly discussed or moved toward adopting Musk's Starlink as a means of avoiding Trump’s tariffs and negotiating a better trade deal with the United States."
Cambodia, which is facing a potential 49% tariff rate, appears to be one of those countries. The Post obtained a U.S. embassy cable indicating that Cambodian officials have signaled a "desire to help balance our trade relationship by promoting the market entry of leading U.S. companies such as Boeing and Starlink."
"Another cable from April 17 reported that Starlink was pushing for a license to operate in Djibouti," the newspaper reported. "Embassy staffers wrote they would help Starlink as much as they could: 'Post will continue to follow up with Starlink in identifying government officials and facilitating discussions.'"
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said the internal cables show "gross corruption." Congressional Democrats are already probing the White House's use of Starlink services.
"Surprise, surprise: another Trump move that directly benefits Elon Musk—the guy who spent $260 million to elect Donald Trump and has been given the keys to the federal government," said Van Hollen. "They are rigging the government for themselves."
"The antitrust division has long worked to enforce the law to fight monopoly power, but these attorneys may have been fired for doing just that," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
The Trump Justice Department has removed two of its top antitrust officials amid infighting over the handling of merger enforcement, conflict that came to a head with the DOJ's strange and allegedly corrupt settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks.
CBS News reported that Roger Alford, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Bill Rinner, deputy assistant attorney general and head of merger enforcement, were fired for "insubordination" on Monday after being placed on administrative leave last week.
"There has been tension over the handling of investigations into T-Mobile, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and others," the outlet reported, citing unnamed sources.
The Wall Street Journal subsequently reported that the two officials—both deputies of Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division—were terminated "after internal disagreements over how much discretion their division should have to police mergers and other business conduct that threatens competition."
News of Alford and Rinner's firings came amid growing scrutiny of the Justice Department's merger settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, an agreement that reportedly divided the DOJ internally.
The Capitol Forum reported last week that Justice Department leaders including Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff, "overruled" top antitrust officials who raised concerns about the settlement, Slater among them. HPE hired lobbyists with ties to the Trump White House to push for the deal, which allowed the merger to move forward pending a judge's review of the settlement.
MLex reported over the weekend that Mizelle placed Alford and Ginner on leave last week following "disagreements with higher-ups over a recent merger settlement in HPE-Juniper."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who serves on the Senate Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, called the firings "deeply concerning" and demanded answers from the Trump administration.
"The antitrust division has long worked to enforce the law to fight monopoly power, but these attorneys may have been fired for doing just that," Klobuchar wrote on social media.
Faiz Shakir, an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), wrote in response to the firings that "more and more people [are] taking notice that Trump is using his power to coddle the oligarchs."
"Major cases being settled, rather than fought out in trials," he wrote. "Nothing new being filed to fight major monopolies. Things like non-compete bans and click-to-cancel rules being overturned."
The American Prospect's David Dayen described the internal turmoil at the Trump DOJ as an apparent "effort to hijack antitrust powers on behalf of large corporations."
"This mess is about more than just a wireless back-office infrastructure merger," Dayen wrote, referring to the HPE-Juniper deal. "The antitrust division is actively overseeing cases against Google, Apple, Visa, Live Nation, RealPage, and more."
"If Slater is functionally not in control of the division, then cash and favor-trading will determine the outcomes for some of the biggest companies in the economy," Dayen added. "We're already seeing lenient enforcement at DOJ, with a deal between T-Mobile and UScellular approved. The precedent appears to be set: The right consultants paid the right amount of money can get you a sweetheart deal."
"President Trump's deal to take a $400 million luxury jet from a foreign government deserves full public scrutiny—not a stiff-arm from the Department of Justice," said the head of one watchdog group.
With preparations to refit a Qatari jet to be used as Air Force One "underway," a press freedom group sued the U.S. Department of Justice in federal court on Monday for failing to release the DOJ memorandum about the legality of President Donald Trump accepting the $400 million "flying palace."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), represented by nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight, filed the lawsuit seeking the memo, which was reportedly approved by the Office of Legal Counsel and signed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who previously lobbied on behalf of the Qatari government.
FPF had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the memo on May 15, and the DOJ told the group that fulfilling it would take over 600 days.
"How many flights could Trump have taken on his new plane in the same amount of time it would have taken the DOJ to release this one document?"
"It shouldn't take 620 days to release a single, time-sensitive document," said Lauren Harper, FPF's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, in a Monday statement. "How many flights could Trump have taken on his new plane in the same amount of time it would have taken the DOJ to release this one document?"
The complaint—filed in the District of Columbia—notes that the airplane is set to be donated to Trump's private presidential library foundation after his second term. Harper said that "the government's inability to administer FOIA makes it too easy for agencies to keep secrets, and nonexistent disclosure rules around donations to presidential libraries provide easy cover for bad actors and potential corruption."
It's not just FPF sounding the alarm about the aircraft. The complaint points out that "a number of stakeholders, including ethics experts and several GOP lawmakers, have questioned the propriety and legality of the move, including whether acceptance of the plane would violate the U.S. Constitution's foreign emoluments clause... which prohibits a president from receiving gifts or benefits from foreign governments without the consent of Congress."
Some opponents of the "comically corrupt" so-called gift stressed that it came after the Trump Organization, the Saudi partner DarGlobal, and a company owned by the Qatari government reached a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar.
Despite some initial GOP criticism of the president taking the aircraft, just hours after the Trump administration formally accepted the jet in May, U.S. Senate Republicans thwarted an attempt by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to pass by unanimous consent legislation intended to prevent a foreign plane from serving as Air Force One.
"Although President Trump characterized the deal as a smart business decision, remarking that it would be 'stupid' not to accept 'a free, very expensive airplane,' experts have noted that it will be costly to retrofit the jet for use as Air Force One, with estimatesranging from less than $400 million to more than $1 billion," the complaint states.
As The New York Times reported Sunday:
Officially, and conveniently, the price tag has been classified. But even by Washington standards, where "black budgets" are often used as an excuse to avoid revealing the cost of outdated spy satellites and lavish end-of-year parties, the techniques being used to hide the cost of Mr. Trump's pet project are inventive.
Which may explain why no one wants to discuss a mysterious, $934 million transfer of funds from one of the Pentagon's most over-budget, out-of-control projects—the modernization of America's aging, ground-based nuclear missiles...
Air Force officials privately concede that they are paying for renovations of the Qatari Air Force One with the transfer from another the massively-over-budget, behind-schedule program, called the Sentinel.
Preparations to refit the plane "are underway, and floor plans or schematics have been seen by senior U.S. officials," according to Monday reporting by CBS News. One unnamed budget official who spoke to the outlet also "believes the money to pay for upgrades will come from the Sentinel program."
Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said Monday that "President Trump's deal to take a $400 million luxury jet from a foreign government deserves full public scrutiny—not a stiff-arm from the Department of Justice."
"This is precisely the kind of corrupt arrangement that public records laws are designed to expose," Chukwu added. "The DOJ cannot sit on its hands and expect the American people to wait years for the truth while serious questions about corruption, self-dealing, and foreign influence go unanswered."
The complaint highlights that "Bondi's decision not to recuse herself from this matter, despite her links to the Qatari government, adds to a growing body of questionable ethical practices that have arisen during her short tenure as attorney general."
It also emphasizes that "the Qatari jet is just one in a list of current and prospective extravagant donations to President Trump's presidential library foundation that has raised significant questions about the use of private foundation donations to improperly influence government policy."
"Notably, ABC News and Paramount each agreed to resolve cases President Trump filed against the media entities by paying multimillion-dollar settlements to the Trump presidential library foundation, with Paramount's $16 million agreed payout coming at the same time it sought government approval for a planned merger with Skydance," the filing details. "On July 24, the Federal Communications Commission announced its approval of the $8 billion merger."
"The Trump regime just handed Christian nationalists a loaded weapon: your federal workplace," said one critic.
The Trump administration issued a memo Monday allowing federal employees to proselytize in the workplace, a move welcomed by many conservatives but denounced by proponents of the separation of church and state.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) memo "provides clear guidance to ensure federal employees may express their religious beliefs through prayer, personal items, group gatherings, and conversations without fear of discrimination or retaliation."
"Employees must be allowed to engage in private religious expression in work areas to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression," the memo states.
Federal workers "should be permitted to display and use items used for religious purposes or icons of a religiously significant nature, including but not limited to bibles, artwork, jewelry, posters displaying religious messages, and other indicia of religion (such as crosses, crucifixes, and mezuzahs) on their desks, on their person, and in their assigned workspaces," the document continues.
"Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature," OPM said—without elaborating on what constitutes harassment.
"These shocking changes essentially permit workplace evangelizing."
"Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities," the memo adds.
OPM Director Scott Kupor said in a statement that "federal employees should never have to choose between their faith and their career."
"This guidance ensures the federal workplace is not just compliant with the law but welcoming to Americans of all faiths," Kupor added. "Under President [Donald] Trump's leadership, we are restoring constitutional freedoms and making government a place where people of faith are respected, not sidelined."
The OPM memo was widely applauded by conservative social media users—although some were dismayed that the new rules also apply to Muslims.
Critics, however, blasted what the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) called "a gift to evangelicals and the myth of 'anti-Christian bias.'"
FFRF co-president Laurie Gaylor said that "these shocking changes essentially permit workplace evangelizing, but worse still, allow supervisors to evangelize underlings and federal workers to proselytize the public they serve."
"This is the implementation of Christian nationalism in our federal government," Gaylor added.
The Secular Coalition for America denounced the memo as "another effort to grant privileges to certain religions while ignoring nonreligious people's rights."
Monday's memo follows another issued by Kupor on July 16 that encouraged federal agencies to take a "generous approach" to evaluating government employees who request telework and other flexibilities due to their religious beliefs.
The OPM directives follow the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling, in which the court's right-wing majority declared that Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."
The new memo also comes on the heels of three religion-based executive orders issued by Trump during his second term. One order established a White House Faith Office tasked with ensuring religious organizations have a voice in the federal government. Another seeks to "eradicate" what Trump claims is the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." Yet another created a Religious Liberty Commission meant to promote and protect religious freedom.