

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.
The world's richest man "has wiped billions off of Tesla's share value, trashed the company's reputation, and driven millions of its customers away," one campaigner said, urging shareholders to reject his pay plan.
A coalition of labor unions and progressive advocacy organizations on Tuesday launched the "Take Back Tesla" campaign, urging shareholders of the electric vehicle giant to reject a pay package that could make CEO Elon Musk the world's first trillionaire.
Musk is already the richest person on the planet, with an estimated net worth of $458-485.9 billion as of Wednesday. His previous 10-year proposal, worth $56 billion, was invalidated by a judge. He's now on an interim plan that has not been approved by shareholders, who are set to vote on the $1 trillion package at the company's annual meeting next month.
Tesla's board unveiled the proposed $1 trillion plan—which would be the biggest corporate compensation package in history—last month. Musk would get the full amount if he boosted share value "eightfold over the next decade" and stayed at Tesla for at least that long. He would own 29% of the company, one of several in which he holds a leadership position.
Top unions, such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and Communications Workers of America (CWA), joined groups including Americans for Financial Reform, Ekō, People's Action Institute, Public Citizen, and Stop the Money Pipeline for the new campaign against "Musk's money grab." As part of it, they launched the website TakeBackTesla.com.
"How shareholders vote on Musk's trillion-dollar pay package and other important Tesla ballot items will likely set the stage for similar attempts by other oligarchs to consolidate their own power."
Several coalition leaders pointed to Musk's recent efforts to get President Donald Trump elected and then help the Republican gut the federal government—which has been shut down for 22 days due to a congressional funding fight—via their so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The billionaire's DOGE activities provoked nationwide protests targeting Tesla.
"In the last 12 months, Elon Musk's attempts to destroy the American government have caused huge damage to the Tesla brand and contributed to a significant decline in the company's sales in multiple key markets," Stop the Money Pipeline's Alex Connon noted, urging shareholders to "reject this insane proposal."
AFT president Randi Weingarten said that "the Tesla board, instead of upholding basic governance standards, wants to green-light an outrageous $1 trillion pay package for a CEO who has spent most of the year engaged in childish political brawls, rather than working to create shareholder value."
"To reward this destructive behavior with an obscene salary is a slap in the face—not only to the federal workers he's fired, but to the retirees whose pensions are invested in Tesla stock," she declared.
Dubbing the proposal "Musk's corporate heist," CWA president Claude Cummings Jr. similarly stressed that "Elon Musk is enriching himself by stealing from the American worker—from our infrastructure dollars for rural broadband to workers' private data from the Department of Labor—and now he wants to steal $1 trillion from our pensions and retirement accounts."
Natalia Renta, Americans for Financial Reform's associate director of corporate governance and power, emphasized that the vote is bigger than Musk. She said that "how shareholders vote on Musk's trillion-dollar pay package and other important Tesla ballot items will likely set the stage for similar attempts by other oligarchs to consolidate their own power."
"This new website allows people to get their voices heard by sending letters to their state financial officer and mutual fund manager (if they have one)," Renta added. State treasurers of Connecticut, Nevada, and New Mexico have already joined mounting calls for shareholders to vote down Musk's compensation package.
Ekō executive director Emma Ruby-Sachs argued that "no CEO is worth a trillion-dollar pay package, but especially not Elon Musk, who has wiped billions off of Tesla's share value, trashed the company's reputation, and driven millions of its customers away. Tesla's shareholders need to show the judgment Musk so clearly lacks, and reject this pay deal."
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
I’ve been directly involved in government shutdowns, one when I was secretary of labor. It’s hard for me to describe the fear, frustration, and chaos that ensued. I recall spending the first day consoling employees—many in tears as they headed out the door.
In some ways, this shutdown is similar to others. Agencies and departments designed to protect consumers, workers, and investors are now officially closed, as are national parks and museums.
Most federal workers are not being paid—as many as 750,000 could be furloughed—including those who are required to remain on the job, like air-traffic controllers or members of the US military.
So-called “mandatory” spending, including Social Security and Medicare payments, are continuing, although checks could be delayed. (President Donald Trump has made sure that construction of his new White House ballroom won’t be affected.)
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
There have been eight shutdowns since 1990. Trump has now presided over four.
But this shutdown—the one that began Wednesday morning—is radically different.
For one thing, it’s the consequence of a decision made in July by Trump and Senate Republicans to pass Trump’s gigantic “big beautiful bill” (I prefer to call it “big ugly bill”) without any Democratic votes.
They could do that because of an arcane Senate procedure called “reconciliation,” which allowed the big ugly to get through the Senate with just 51 votes rather than the normal 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.
The final tally was a squeaker. All Senate Democrats opposed the legislation. When three Senate Republicans joined them, Vice President JD Vance was called in to break a tie. Some Republicans bragged that they didn’t need a single Democrat.
The big ugly fundamentally altered the priorities of the United States government. It cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act—with the result that health insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans will soar starting in January.
The big ugly also cut nutrition assistance and environmental protection, while bulking up immigration enforcement and cutting the taxes of wealthy Americans and big corporations.
Trump and Senate Republicans didn’t need a single Democrat then. But this time, Republicans couldn’t use the arcane reconciliation process to pass a bill to keep the governing going.
Now they needed Senate Democratic votes.
Yet keeping the government going meant keeping all the priorities included in the big ugly bill that all Senate Democrats opposed.
Which is why Senate Democrats refused to sign on unless most of the big ugly’s cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act were restored, so health insurance premiums won’t soar next year.
Even if Senate Democrats had gotten that concession, the Republican bill to keep the government going would retain all the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations contained in the big ugly, along with all the cuts in nutrition assistance, and all the increased funding for immigration enforcement.
There’s a deeper irony here.
As a practical matter, the US government has been “shut down” for over eight months, since Trump took office a second time.
Trump and the sycophants surrounding him—such as Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and, before him, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficnecy—have had no compunctions about shutting down parts of the government they don’t like—such as US Agency for International Development.
They’ve also fired, laid off, furloughed, or extended buyouts to hundreds of thousands of federal employees doing work they don’t value, such as at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (The federal government is already expected to employ 300,000 fewer workers by December than it did last January.)
They’ve impounded appropriations from Congress for activities they oppose, ranging across the entire federal government.
Wednesday, on the first day of the shutdown, Vought announced that the administration was freezing some $26 billion in funds Congress had appropriated—including $18 billion for New York City infrastructure (home to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) and $8 billion for environmental projects in 16 states, mostly led by Democrats.
All of this is illegal—it violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974—but it seems unlikely that courts will act soon enough to prevent the regime from harming vast numbers of Americans.
Vought is also initiating another round of mass layoffs targeting, in his words, “a lot” of government workers.
This is being described by Republicans as “payback” for the Democrats not voting to keep the government going, but evidently nothing stopped Vought from doing mass layoffs and freezing Congress’ appropriations before the shutdown.
In fact, the eagerness of Trump and his lapdogs over the last eight months to disregard the will of Congress and close whatever they want of the government offers another reason why Democrats shouldn’t cave in.
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
If tens of millions of Americans lose their health insurance starting in January because they can no longer afford to pay sky-high premiums, Trump and his Republicans will be blamed. Months before the midterms.
It would be Trump’s and his Republicans’ fault anyway—it’s part of their big ugly bill—but this way, in the fight over whether to reopen the government, Americans will have a chance to see Democrats standing up for them.
"Our system isn’t broken," said one progressive critic. "It’s working exactly how billionaires want it to work."
Elon Musk became the first person in history with a net worth $500 billion as the Tesla and SpaceX CEO's fortune briefly topped the half-trillion dollar mark on Wednesday, according to Forbes' Real-Time Billionaires tracker.
According to this year's International Monetary Fund figures, that makes Musk's net worth higher than the gross domestic product of 165 of the world's 195 nations.
Rooted in apartheid South Africa, built on a foundation of unethical business practices, and boosted by staggering sums of corporate welfare, Musk's fortune soared to even greater heights after he played a key role in buying the 2024 election for President Donald Trump and other Republican candidates by pouring over a quarter billion dollars into their campaign coffers.

As Forbes noted:
Worth just $24.6 billion in March 2020, soaring Tesla shares made him the fifth person ever worth $100 billion, in August 2020. He became the world’s richest person for the first time in January 2021, with a nearly $190 billion net worth. Then, in September 2021, he became the third person ever worth $200 billion (after Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Frenchman Bernard Arnault of luxury goods conglomerate LVMH). Musk went on to hit $300 billion in November 2021 and $400 billion in December 2024.
Musk was rewarded for his 2024 largesse by being named the de facto head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a job he has since left after overseeing the Project 2025-inspired evisceration of numerous federal agencies.
As progressives argue that the existence of billionaires is a public policy failure, Musk apparently no longer wants to be one. That's because he's seeking to leave the realm of mere multicentibillionaires behind and become the world's first trillionaire. Such an outcome is possible under a compensation package recently proposed by Tesla's board, and Forbes says it could happen by 2033.
Addressing this possibility, Musk—who has long warned about the existential threat posed by artificial intelligence, even as his companies pioneer such technology—said on his social media site X last year that “it’s not about ‘compensation’, but about me having enough influence over Tesla to ensure safety if we build millions of robots."
“If I can just get kicked out in the future by activist shareholder advisory firms who don’t even own Tesla shares themselves, I’m not comfortable with that future," he added.
Progressive observers expressed dismay at the news of Musk's latest money milestone.
44% of Americans are paid less than a living wage, while a union-buster who pays poverty wages, and buys elections to get more tax breaks hits $500 billion. Our system isn’t broken.It’s working exactly how billionaires want it to work.
[image or embed]
— Melanie D’Arrigo (@darrigomelanie.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 1:00 PM
Campaign for New York Health executive director Melanie D'Arrigo said Wednesday on social media that "Elon Musk hitting $500 billion while 60% of Americans can’t afford basic necessities is what it looks like when billionaires buy elections to get laws written to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else."
"Elon Musk is a result of decades of policy failures," she added.
Podcaster Brian Allen alluded to United Nations World Food Program Director David Beasley's challenge to Musk to contribute toward the $6.6 trillion needed to combat world hunger.
"He could’ve solved it 83 times, but chose to buy Twitter, pump Dogecoin, and lay off workers instead," Allen said of Musk. "Welcome to late-stage capitalism."