

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 AFL-CIO report also points out that "a majority of S&P 500 CEOs made more in one day than the median US worker made in one year."
"Failed trillionaire" Elon Musk's $158 billion pay package at Tesla was so high that it "broke the CEO pay curve," as the nation's largest federation of labor unions underscored on Thursday in its annual report about chief executive pay.
"Including Musk, S&P 500 CEOs received $340.1 million on average in 2025, about a 1,700% increase over the previous year," explains the AFL-CIO's latest "Executive Paywatch" report. "Excluding Musk's Tesla pay package, the average CEO pay at S&P 500 companies increased 21%, from $18.9 million in 2024 to $22.8 million in 2025."
"The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio across S&P 500 Index companies was 5,387-to-1 in 2025. Musk's total compensation at Tesla was 2,522,203 times the median Tesla employee's pay in 2025," the publication continues. "Excluding Musk, the average pay ratio of S&P 500 companies increased from 285-to-1 in 2024 to 312-to-1 in 2025."
Musk became the world's first trillionaire in June, after another company for which he serves as CEO, SpaceX, went public—but as of Thursday afternoon, his net worth was estimated at around $880 billion, according to the Bloomberg and Forbes billionaire lists.
The AFL-CIO report spotlights the wealth of the world's richest man, noting that last year "Elon Musk received the median Tesla worker's pay every 4.23 seconds—less time than it takes to read this sentence," but it also stresses that he's far from alone in making exorbitant amounts of money compared with the wages of workers at the companies he leads.
"As shown in our latest Paywatch report, executive compensation has reached a new, shameful high," said AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond in a statement. The report points out that "a majority of S&P 500 CEOs made more in one day than the median US worker made in one year."
"Excessive CEO compensation contributes to growing economic inequality," the document says. "It creates the risk that CEOs will make short-term decisions to maximize their pay, even if it hurts the company's long-term health. And it's simply unfair to the workers whose labor generates the profit these CEOs capitalize on."
Our new Executive Paywatch report is here, and - spoiler alert - greedy CEOs are making even MORE.Top CEOs made 312x what workers make and took home an average of $22.8 MILLION per YEAR in total compensation.Read our full Paywatch report here: Aflcio.org/paywatch
[image or embed]
— AFL-CIO (@aflcio.org) August 13, 2026 at 12:35 PM
AFL-CIO found that the biggest ratio for executive v. worker pay was in manufacturing: Average executive compensation—which often includes not only a salary but also a bonus, stock, a retirement plan, and more—topped $696 million a year, while the typical worker made just over $93,000.
By sector, the second-highest was in arts, entertainment, and recreation, where executives were paid over $24 million while the median worker got just $24,850 annually. In educational services, average executive pay was around $50 million while workers were paid under $58,000.
The report emphasizes that like the CEOs, "2025 also was a very good year" for President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January and, according to recent federal disclosure forms, pocketed at least $2.2 billion last year—which, as the AFL-CIO found, was "a nearly 254% increase from what he received in 2024."
"Trump's 2025 receipts included $1.4 billion from the sale of $TRUMP memecoins and World Liberty Financial, his family's cryptocurrency business," the report says. "The median US worker would need to work 43,154 years to earn what Trump received in 2025."
16% of adults can’t pay all their bills in full.26% skipped medical care due to cost.23% of renters fell behind on rent in the last year.Meanwhile, CEO pay is exploding. Let’s call this what it is: greed.Learn more in our Executive Paywatch report: Aflcio.org/paywatch
[image or embed]
— AFL-CIO (@aflcio.org) August 13, 2026 at 2:15 PM
While gutting the federal government with help from Musk, Trump last year signed the GOP's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cutting programs for working people to give billionaires more tax breaks—and Wednesday's release of the latest inflation figures highlighted how Americans continue to struggle with the cost of gasoline, groceries, healthcare, housing, and more.
Redmond said that "Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire. Donald Trump raked in over $2 billion since the 2024 election. Meanwhile, working Americans are struggling to feed their kids and pay their electric bills. But there's a better economy we can build for working people."
"That's why the labor movement will continue to fight for every worker to have a union contract that begins to level the playing field and ensures they take home the share of the profit they create," he added. "And it's why we are spending every day until November organizing and mobilizing 16 million union voters to elect pro-worker politicians who will work for us, not wealthy CEOs."
“Trump is making it easier for cartels, criminals, and US adversaries to abuse our financial system," said Sen. Andy Kim. "Because he’s in the pocket of billionaires like Elon Musk, who’d potentially benefit."
Critics are warning that the Trump administration just made financial crimes a lot easier to commit by permanently gutting a law that prevented criminals from using shell companies to obscure their activities. Elon Musk may benefit.
On Tuesday, the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule permanently exempting US individuals and companies from a section of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) requiring them to identify the true owners of opaque companies.
The law, which passed in 2020, was ironically introduced and championed by then-US Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is now President Donald Trump’s secretary of state and national security adviser.
At the time, Rubio called the law—which he introduced with Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)—"the most significant anti-corruption and money laundering law in decades."
But Republicans have since pushed to repeal the legislation, which Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) referred to as "big government overreach."
With Republicans in Congress unable to muster the votes to reverse it legislatively, the Trump administration has effectively killed the law by weakening Treasury Department policy. In March 2025, Treasury adopted an interim rule exempting US companies from its requirements.
Plans for a rule change were announced by Treasury less than 24 hours after the SpaceX and Tesla CEO, Musk—who was then leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—commented on his social media platform X that he would “look into” the statute in response to a right-wing comedian who'd complained about it.
According to a May report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, more than 99% of entities previously required to report under the law were now exempt. That exemption was made permanent this week.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it was "a victory for common sense and American small businesses" and called the reporting requirements "burdensome... for millions of law-abiding business owners without compromising our national security.”
Nelson Bunn, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, said the exact opposite was true.
"By exempting domestic entities and owners from reporting, FinCEN has significantly hindered prosecutors’ ability to identify the bad actors from legitimate businesses when investigating US shell companies used by transnational cartels, human traffickers, and cyberscammers,” Bunn said. "Taking away this indispensable tool for law enforcement endangers American families and communities.”
The change is drawing outrage from Democrats and some Republicans. In a statement on Thursday, Whitehouse and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the rule change "undermines the clear intent of the law."
"The act gave the federal government needed tools to address criminal activity like human trafficking, terrorist financing, drug distribution, sanctions evasion, and more without unduly burdening legitimate commercial entities," they said. "This decision is an unfortunate one that fails to use all available tools to protect Americans and crack down on illicit financial schemes.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, highlighted that the committee's previous oversight found the rollback would likely hamper efforts to stop a host of bad actors.
These included Chinese money-laundering networks that have been used to funnel proceeds to drug cartels, fraudsters using opaque ownership to rip off federal grants and benefits, and a Venezuelan national who allegedly used shell companies to hide over $1 billion in cryptocurrency transactions.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said the law was “designed to stop criminals from laundering money, and Trump and Secretary Bessent are violating the Constitution to gut it,” and in doing so, “intentionally facilitating corruption and crime.”
In a letter sent to Bessent in March 2026, Warren and other Democratic lawmakers noted that Musk himself would be a direct beneficiary of the rule change, since he "uses a network of dozens of secretive companies—potentially the type of entities that, under the CTA, are required to report ownership information to the Treasury Department."
The New York Times found that in Texas alone, there are over 90 different companies and other legal entities tied to Musk, with others in California, Delaware, and Nevada, which he has used to buy property, structure business deals, hold assets, and pay for political activity—including more than $80 million in super political action committee spending to support Trump in 2024—without putting his own name on the transactions.
"Trump is making it easier for cartels, criminals, and US adversaries to abuse our financial system and harm Americans," said Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ). "Why? Because he’s in the pocket of billionaires like Elon Musk, who’d potentially benefit from his shady and corrupt actions."
Warren said: "Secretary Bessent should reverse this decision. And he needs to testify in front of this Committee to explain why he’s putting American national security at risk.”
"They're scared of a movement that demands Medicare for All, prescription drug coverage, and a government that everyday people can be proud of and know works for them."
Troy Jackson, the Maine Democrat running to unseat Republican US Sen. Susan Collins in November, took aim at Elon Musk and other billionaires Wednesday evening for supporting his GOP opponent directly or through a key super political action committee.
"Look, the billionaires in the country know whose side they're on, and it's not ours," Jackson, a former logger and state Senate president, said in a brief video shared on social media, including Musk's platform X.
Jackson—chosen as the Democratic nominee via a convention process last month, after primary winner Graham Platner left the race following a rape allegation that he denied—pointed to a $42 million investment in the contest from the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), whose backers include Musk and various other right-wing megadonors.
"They're here to prop up Susan Collins because they want her to continue to be a rubber stamp and get their income tax cuts," Jackson said. "They're already out with an ad attacking me and my family, to try and make sure that they totally don't talk about the issues."
SLF's 30-second ad, which launched Wednesday, notes his son's lobbying work and smears Jackson as "another dirty politician."
According to Jackson: "They're scared of a movement that goes against the things that they want. They're scared of a movement that demands Medicare for All, prescription drug coverage, and a government that everyday people can be proud of and know works for them."
Wednesday isn't the first time Jackson—who previously ran for governor—has called out billionaires, specifically Musk. After The New York Times reported last month that through his America PAC, Musk intends to spend up to $120 million on a program to help elect Republicans in at least eight states, including Maine, Jackson released a video stressing that the billionaire "doesn't care about us. Really doesn't care about Susan. He cares about him."
"So I would say to you Elon: Maine and really the whole United States doesn't want your dirty money in our politics," Jackson continued. "You don't get to buy the government that you want. This is about all of us coming together and fighting for the government that we deserve, and you're not in it."
Musk became the world's first trillionaire in June, when his company SpaceX made its public market debut, but his current net worth is estimated at over $860 billion, according to the regularly updated Bloomberg and Forbes lists. His trillionaire status came after the early months of the second Trump administration, when Musk was the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.
Reuters reported Thursday that new data from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations shows how Musk's controversial compensation plans for SpaceX and Tesla are benefiting other chief executives. Fred Redmond, the AFL-CIO's secretary-treasurer, said that his pay "changes the dynamic when other CEO compensation plans come up, boards use it as a reference."
The average ratio of CEO to worker pay at S&P 500 companies rose from 285:1 in 2024 to 312:1 last year, excluding Musk's Tesla compensation. When that is included, the ratio becomes 5,387:1. Redmond told Reuters that "as we talk to our members, they're pissed off over what's happening to them, and they feel as though they should be more vocal in terms of calling attention to inequality."
Larson understands how essential it is to protect and expand Social Security’s modest benefits, and he has the road map needed to get there.
Democratic Connecticut Congressman John Larson is a bulldog on behalf of the over 70 million Americans who rely on Social Security’s earned benefits, and the millions more Americans who will rely on those benefits in the future. As advocates for Social Security, who represent seniors, working families, and people with disabilities, we have had the opportunity to work alongside Rep. Larson. We can testify to the depth of his commitment: When it comes to fighting for Social Security, no one has worked harder than Rep. Larson.
A determined and relentless champion of Social Security beneficiaries, Larson has consistently pounded the pavement in his outreach to members across the entire ideological reach of the Democratic Party from the progressive Squad to moderate New Democrats to Democratic leadership and virtually everyone in between. In the last Congress, Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act earned in the last Congress support from over 90% of House Democrats, representing all corners of the Democratic coalition. His legislation would keep Social Security strong for decades to come, and increase benefits for everyone.
Rep. Larson refuses to give up. When faced with a political consensus that assumed it was necessary to cut Social Security’s hard-earned benefits, Larson worked to change the entire conversation about Social Security. Thanks to his hard work, Democrats are now united around strengthening Social Security by making the wealthy pay their fair share, and even some Republicans are beginning to come on board. Larson is working closely with Democratic Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (NY) on plans to bring a Social Security expansion bill up for a vote once Democrats regain control of the US House.
Importantly, Larson has gone face to face with Elon Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” and has stood up to them, fighting for every inch when it comes to protecting Social Security from vicious DOGE attacks.
Larson understands that Social Security’s future is a question of values, not affordability.
Rep. John Larson’s enviable ability to propel a positive, far-reaching vision in the public debate, while working pragmatically with his colleagues to ensure consensus, is a rare combination of attributes. Larson understands how essential it is to protect and expand Social Security’s modest benefits, and he has the road map needed to get there.
One thing is certain: Congress must act on Social Security during the next few years. Without action, Social Security faces an automatic benefit cut of roughly 20% around the year 2032. Larson has a crucial role to play in ensuring that Congress addresses this the right way—by making the wealthy pay in at the same rate as the rest of us.
He will lead the charge. When the Democrats win back the gavel in the House of Representatives, Larson will chair the Social Security Subcommittee of the all-powerful Ways and Means Committee. That comes from his seniority. Whether Social Security is expanded or cut will be decided by the leaders in Congress. His voice, together with his knowledge, his tireless work effort, and his personal connections to colleagues achieved over his years of service, will make the difference whether benefits are increased or cut.
Larson understands that Social Security’s future is a question of values, not affordability. He possesses the moral vision to fight for the type of society that treasures everyone, especially people living through their most difficult and vulnerable moments. By pairing this sense of direction and purpose with a canny ability to understand and persuade his colleagues, Larson is indispensable to make sure legislation to protect and expand Social Security goes the distance.
DOGE was a "slapdash and deceptive effort" that only succeeded in "putting Americans’ sensitive data at risk and hollowing out critical agencies," said US Sen. Gary Peters.
A report from the Government Accountability Office released Thursday details how Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency wildly exaggerated the savings it was able to deliver for the US federal government.
The report, requested by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), finds that DOGE used a number of tricks to inflate the value of its purported savings, including taking credit for ending leases that were already in the process of being terminated and falsely claiming to have canceled contracts that were left intact.
The report also finds that DOGE "did not provide sufficient information to verify the method used to calculate 96%" of savings purportedly achieved through grant cancellations.
And in cases where DOGE actually was responsible for terminating a contract or cancelling a lease, the report notes that it "did not consistently use its stated methodology for calculating savings or disclose limitations in a sufficient manner."
Even in instances where the department followed its stated methodology, the report adds, "it did not account for many complexities and nuances of federal contracting," such as obligations or settlement costs that may have come from ending a contract.
In touting the GAO report, Peters said it exposed DOGE as a "slapdash and deceptive effort" at streamlining government spending that only succeeded in "putting Americans’ sensitive data at risk and hollowing out critical agencies."
Blumenthal accused the Trump administration of using DOGE as cover to "recklessly slash government programs, ransacking critical services and resources and proudly displaying supposed 'savings.'"
Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, highlighted a number of DOGE flubs in a social media post breaking down the GAO report, including a "favorite example" of DOGE claiming $28 million in savings related to an Air Force contract that in reality only saved around $600,000.
Eric Boehm, writer for libertarian magazine Reason, said that the GAO report revealed that the savings Musk and his minions claimed from their work was "mostly just made up."
In his assessment, Blumenthal said the report only "underscores the need for increased transparency and accountability from the Trump administration so the American public can better understand DOGE’s activities as the organization guts vital government programs."
The mega-billionaire's promise to spend somewhere between $100 and $120 million on congressional races this year shouldn’t be viewed as a problem. It should be recognized as an opportunity.
Elon Musk will be spending $100 million to $120 million in at least eight states to help elect Republicans in November, according to The New York Times.
Musk’s spending is set to begin next month, targeting Senate races in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, and potentially North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Musk will also spend in House races in states including California, Wisconsin, and Washington.
The money won’t be spent only on TV advertising. Musk’s “America PAC” is lining up firms that focus on knocking on voters’ doors. Fake grassroots.
But Musk’s money shouldn’t be viewed as a problem. It’s an opportunity.
A Republican candidate who stinks of Musk must be presumed to be against average working Americans.
Recall that Musk spent millions of dollars on a pivotal election for Wisconsin’s highest court in April 2025. It pitted Musk’s candidate — Trump-endorsed former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel — against progressive Dane County Judge Susan Crawford. The winner would determine the supermajority of the court.
Schimel lost, largely due to Musk’s support — which backfired. The public was outraged that the richest person in the world was spending some of his massive wealth on the election. They also recoiled at the wreckage Musk wrought at DOGE. And his unbridled racism.
In Crawford’s victory speech, she acknowledged the significance of Musk’s money to the outcome of the race. “As a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin,” she said. “And we won.”
She described the election as a victory over an “unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” adding “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”
Musk’s support will backfire again this year, in race after race — if voters know about it.
So let’s make it a kind of smell test for any Republican that Musk and his “America PAC” are supporting. A Republican candidate who stinks of Musk must be presumed to be against average working Americans.
Keep your nose to the ground. If you get a whiff of Musk, alert your family, friends, neighbors, and associates. If they’re even slightly uncertain about whom to support, the Musk test should convince them.
Musk reportedly plans to spend at least $100 million to help Sen. Susan Collins and other vulnerable Republicans across the United States.
Troy Jackson, the Democratic nominee for US Senate in Maine, delivered a video response on Sunday to mega-billionaire Elon Musk's plan to spend at least $100 million to aid Sen. Susan Collins and other Republicans in key races across the country.
The New York Times reported that Musk, through his America PAC, intends to "spend $100 million to $120 million on a new field program in at least eight states to help elect Republicans in November." The group, according to the Times, "plans to initially target Senate races in at least five states—Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio—and is having conversations about the contests in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas."
"Apparently Elon Musk has gotten off Twitter long enough to realize that he's got a real problem here in Maine," Jackson, the former president of Maine's Senate, said in a one-minute response to the report on America PAC's spending plans. "The problem is me and you, working to try and get a government that we should have, that we deserve."
"He wants to have people that are totally beholden to him and [President] Donald Trump making sure that we're getting tax cuts for billionaires on the back of our healthcare system, on the back of our hospitals," Jackson continued. "That's what Elon Musk wants. He doesn't care about us. Really doesn't care about Susan. He cares about him. So I would say to you Elon: Maine and really the whole United States doesn't want your dirty money in our politics. You don't get to buy the government that you want. This is about all of us coming together and fighting for the government that we deserve, and you're not in it."
The Times reported that Musk's super PAC is "closely coordinating with an ecosystem of outside groups that are preparing field campaigns, including Americans for Prosperity, which is part of the billionaire Koch brothers’ political network, and the Sentinel Action Fund, another conservative organization."
Musk became the world's first trillionaire earlier this year with the public market debut of SpaceX, whose subsequent decline in market cap pushed his net worth back down to around $690 billion—still the largest individual fortune in the world.
With his intervention in Maine, Musk joins nearly 100 other billionaires who are financially supporting Collins' bid for a sixth US Senate term. Billionaire support has helped give Collins a massive fundraising advantage over Jackson, who was nominated just last month to replace Graham Platner on the general election ballot.
In the two days following his nomination, Jackson raised $2 million from 58,000 donors, including 30,000 new contributors—a major show of small-dollar support.
"We’re all getting crushed out here. Healthcare, housing, heat," Jackson says in his first general election campaign ad, which is set to begin airing this week. “We’ve gotta fight back. We’re all hungry for it. Maine is ready for a change."
Without endless tax deferrals, they would have only a tiny fraction of what they own today, yet, as things stand, nothing stops them from wielding the power and influence their wealth buys to benefit themselves.
The valuation trends up and down, but one thing’s for sure: Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire this summer. At the height of the SpaceX IPO he was briefly worth around $1.45 trillion.
Then SpaceX stock tanked, rallied, then tanked again. But the most important thing about Musk’s wealth isn’t whether it stays above the 13-figure threshold—it’s that 94% of it comes from not having to pay taxes on unrealized gains.
That’s right: Musk’s fortune effectively comes from not paying taxes.
It’s no exaggeration to say that trillionaires (Musk likely won’t be the last) are creatures of the tax code. They ought to be called “taxillionaires.” If it weren’t for laws that permit the wealthy to endlessly defer paying taxes by keeping their gains unrealized, there would be no trillionaires—and many fewer billionaires.
We should end the practice of funding billionaires’ and trillionaires’ accumulation of power at public expense by letting them amass yet larger fortunes without paying taxes.
According to Musk’s own account, when he sold his stake in Paypal in 2002, he netted $180 million, invested it all in SpaceX and Tesla, and borrowed to pay his living expenses. To get from $180 million to a trillion today implies annual returns of over 40% (returns that would be considered impossible for ordinary investors).
Allowing these returns to compound untaxed supercharges growth.
Musk paid some taxes along the way, when he exercised stock options or sold some Tesla shares, but any taxes he paid are insignificant compared to his wealth. By contrast, for most working Americans earning a good salary, total state and federal taxes are significant—typically around 40%.
They can put limited amounts in tax-deferred IRAs, 401(k) plans, and the like. But most of their savings comes from net paychecks after withholding for federal, state, local, Social Security, unemployment, and Medicare taxes. Musk is effectively exempt from these taxes.
But he doesn’t have to be.
Suppose he were subject to the same taxes on his annual wealth increase that most higher-earning Americans pay on what they make, and had to sell some Tesla and SpaceX shares to pay those taxes. We crunched the numbers based on the latest figures, and found he’d be worth around $47 billion today—rich enough to afford the most lavish lifestyle imaginable, but not a trillionaire, and not richer than the GDP of most countries.
It’s the same story for Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and other multibillionaires.
The vast bulk of their fortunes came from not paying taxes on their wealth as it grew. Without endless tax deferrals, they would have only a tiny fraction of what they own today (although that tiny fraction would still be a huge amount of money). Yet as things stand today, nothing stops them from wielding the power and influence their wealth buys to benefit themselves.
In the 2024 elections, Musk was the largest campaign donor, giving $291 million. That’s chump change for him, but it bought unprecedented power: lucrative contracts, the suspension of investigations of Musk’s businesses, access to government data, and the authority to dismantle government programs—including disruptions to foreign aid which are projected to result in over 14 million people dying from preventable diseases.
It’s a vicious cycle of wealth begetting power which begets more wealth, diverting it from the needy and vulnerable. We’re in the grip of unprecedented power accumulated by private, super-rich individuals.
We can check their power by fixing the untaxed wealth problem. We should end the practice of funding billionaires’ and trillionaires’ accumulation of power at public expense by letting them amass yet larger fortunes without paying taxes. We should adopt sensible policies requiring them to pay their fair share, such as the Billionaires Minimum Income Tax Act introduced in Congress in 2023.
Over the next decade, we will face crisis-level national debt and unmet needs for healthcare and retirement income. That will force us to decide whether to leave the vast pool of billionaire and trillionaire wealth untouched, or tax them like the rest of us to curb their influence and address public needs. The choice is ours.
"This would put untold species directly in harm's way," the Center for Biological Diversity warned.
Under pressure from companies owned by billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the Trump administration announced this week that it will waive what it called "unnecessary environmental laws and regulations" in order to expedite the approval of commercial rocket launches.
The US Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to waive numerous environmental review requirements and related federal laws that currently apply to commercial space launches, citing legal authority Congress granted to the secretary of transportation.
The proposed changes—on which the public has 30 days to comment—would make it much faster and easier for space profiteers to get permission to launch rockets or operate commercial spaceports in the United States by allowing the FAA to waive part or all of over a dozen laws and rules, including National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
“America won the first space race, and we can do it again—but only if we get government red tape out of the way,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Tuesday. "That’s why President [Donald] Trump has charged USDOT with unlocking the final frontier and reestablishing the United States’ dominance in space."
Trump’s FAA announced today that it intends to exempt #space launches and spacecraft reentries from complying with environmental laws like the #EndangeredSpeciesAct. This will put untold species directly in harm’s way.You can be sure we’ll fight this obscene giveaway to special interests 🚀🚀
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) July 28, 2026 at 4:08 PM
The USDOT said that other federal agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the US military, may still be required to conduct environmental reviews under the law for launches on some federal property.
The proposal follows Trump's August 2025 executive order, "Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry," which critics charge was issued to benefit Musk, the world's richest person, and his company SpaceX, which is seeking to dramatically increase launches and landings and has suffered a series of rocket explosions. Trump has boosted other companies—including X and Tesla—led by Musk, who served for a period last year as de facto head of the president's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Opponents warn that, if approved, the proposed changes mean that the FAA would generally no longer require environmental studies or consultations before issuing commercial space licenses.
“NASA has conducted space launches for decades in a responsible way, but now Trump wants to gut even the most basic environmental safeguards to enrich some of the world’s wealthiest people,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). “We’ve seen real environmental damage from the exploding rocket toys of the superrich. You can be damn sure we’ll fight this obscene giveaway to special interests.”
In 2024, SpaceX was punished with a paltry $150,000 in fines for violating the Clean Water Act after it discharged tens of thousands of gallons of industrial waste from a launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas.
CBD and other green and Indigenous groups last month sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service in a bid to stop the Trump administration from handing over 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas to SpaceX in exchange for 683 acres elsewhere.
On Wednesday, CNBC revealed that six US lawmakers from both major parties—including five who sit on committees that regulate SpaceX—had or have family investments in the company, raising concerns over apparent conflicts of interest.
In addition to environmental concerns, Trump has also come under fire for militarizing space in contravention of the Outer Space Treaty—which the US has ratified—by launching the Space Force as an official service branch during his first term.
"Members of Congress are continuing to buy and sell stocks as if they’re on Wall Street," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "We need a FULL ban on congressional stock trading."
Congressional lawmakers from both major parties who have purchased stock in Elon Musk's SpaceX—including some serving on committees whose work intersects with the company's business—are facing increasing scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest, CNBC reported Tuesday.
According to CNBC's Luke Fountain and Justin Papp, six lawmakers—Reps. William Timmons (R-SC), John McGuire (R-Va.), Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), and John James (R-Mich.)—or members of their immediate families bought between roughly $83,000 and $245,000 in SpaceX shares combined. All of the purchases occurred within six days of SpaceX's June 12 initial public offering.
Although all of the purchases were legal and there is no evidence of insider trading, Fountain and Papp noted that "five of the lawmakers serve on committees whose work intersects with SpaceX’s defense, satellite, [artificial intelligence], federal contracting, or securities businesses."
Responding to the report, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) took to social media to call for a full ban on congressional stock trading.
Members of Congress are continuing to buy and sell stocks as if they’re on Wall Street.They’re not doing it for the interest of their constituents — it’s in the interest of their pockets.We need a FULL ban on congressional stock trading.
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (@jayapal.house.gov) July 28, 2026 at 1:00 PM
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Stop Insider Trading Act in a bipartisan vote; however, the current legal framework is primarily based on preventing self-dealing and boosting disclosure, not a trading ban.
Last year, Jayapal introduced the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act, and Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) revived the ETHICS Act, both of which would "prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, securities, commodities, or futures."
Monday's disclosure comes as SpaceX is already facing intense scrutiny over its growing influence in Washington, DC. In 2023, environmental groups sued the Federal Aviation Administration over approvals allowing expanded Starship launches in South Texas, arguing the agency violated federal environmental law by failing to adequately assess impacts on nearby wildlife refuges and endangered species amid a string of failed launches in which rockets exploded.
Earlier this year, tribal and conservation groups filed a lawsuit aiming to stop the US Fish and Wildlife Service from handing over 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas to SpaceX in exchange for 683 acres elsewhere.
While conservationists contend that SpaceX launches and explosions threaten wildlife and sensitive habitats, astronomers have warned that the company's rapidly expanding Starlink satellite constellation is cluttering near-Earth orbit, degrading dark skies, and interfering with astronomical observations.
Critics have also raised concerns about Musk's relationship with federal regulators, with questions repeatedly raised surrounding the independence of agencies responsible for overseeing SpaceX as the company seeks further launch approvals.
While Musk's short-lived stint as the de facto head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency ended last year, a mix of former employees from Musk companies SpaceX, Tesla, and xAI were granted access or assigned to at least 15 executive branch agencies during 2025, according to reporting by The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, Wired, and other outlets.