SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
federal government
9th Circuit Rules Trump Order for Mass Firings 'Far Exceeds' Constitutional Authority
The coalition behind the legal challenge the Court's decision "rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganization of the federal government."
May 31, 2025
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday night kept in place a block on President Donald Trump's efforts for massive firings and agency restructuring across the federal government, saying a far-reaching executive order signed in February went way beyond his constitutional authority and that the potential harm caused by the terminations warrants the hold while legal challenges continue to play out in the courts.
"The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the appeals court wrote in its 2-1 decision.
The majority decision, written by Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher, noted that while "the President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies," the kind of far-reaching approach represented by Trump's executive order "has long been subject to Congressional approval."
According to the Associated Press:
The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward.
The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority.
In a statement late Friday, the coalition behind the lawsuit that challenge Trump's order—which includes nationwide labor unions and non-profit groups as well as cities and counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, and Washington—welcomed the ruling as it once again slammed Trump's assault on the nation's federal workforce and the rule of law.
The 9th Circuit's decision, the coalition said, "rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganization of the federal government."
Trump's actions, the statement continued, "have already thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services to people and communities across our nation. Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government – laying off federal employees en masse and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that. We are gratified by the court's decision today to allow the pause of these harmful actions to endure while our case proceeds."
"The Trump administration's reckless attempt to dismantle our government without congressional approval threatens vital services Americans depend on every day—from caring for veterans and safeguarding public health, to protecting our environment and maintaining national security," said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union, the nation's largest federal worker union and a party to the suit, in response to the ruling. “This illegal power grab would gut federal agencies, disrupt communities nationwide, and put critical public services at risk. AFGE is proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with this coalition to protect not just the patriotic public servants we represent, but the integrity of American government and the essential services that our nation deserves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Corporate Leaders Who Strip Companies for Parts Have No Business in Government
When corporations prioritize shareholder payouts over real investment, society loses—but when governments adopt the same model, the consequences are compounded.
May 13, 2025
There’s a familiar myth in American politics: that of the no-nonsense business leader who cuts through red tape and gets results. It fuels the belief that running a country is just like running a company—and that executives, with their boardroom instincts and bottom-line mindset, are exactly what government needs.
But that myth collapses under the weight of what corporate leadership has actually become—and what happens when it migrates into public office.
Economist William Lazonick has spent decades analyzing that transformation. He argues that corporate America has abandoned its commitment to innovation and productive investment, replacing it with a laser focus on cost-cutting, price gouging, and tax dodging to boost profits so they can do more stock buybacks—all in the name of maximizing shareholder value. Most executives are no longer rewarded for building durable businesses or contributing to the real economy—they’re rewarded for how efficiently they extract value from the companies that they control.
We’re not just talking about fragile companies. We’re talking about the erosion of public institutions, rising inequality, and a democracy that serves fewer and fewer people.
Lazonick calls this model a “scourge,” blaming it for weakening U.S. technological leadership, driving massive inequality, and destabilizing the broader economy. Now, he warns, this same extractive logic is infiltrating the federal government.
The ongoing 2025 budget debates are a case in point. Under the guise of “efficiency” and “fiscal responsibility,” the Trump administration has proposed slashing $163 billion from federal spending—cuts that would gut education, housing, and medical research—all of which are essential for value creation. The language mirrors what executives have long used to justify layoffs, offshoring, and disinvestment. But in this case, it’s not a corporation being hollowed out. It’s the state itself.
Lazonick argues that this shouldn’t surprise anyone. “Because these people have gotten away with looting corporations, they’ve come to believe it’s their right to loot the state,” he says. Even among tech figures who’ve built or have led the building of real products—like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg—Lazonick notes a mindset of entitlement: “They treat the resulting wealth as entirely their own, as if they alone earned it.” That thinking now shapes public policy, where deregulation and budget cuts benefit the wealthy while dismantling protections for workers and consumers.
Take Musk, for example. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he’s worked to weaken regulatory agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board—both of which would typically oversee parts of his business empire. At the same time, his companies continue securing massive federal contracts, including a potential $2 billion FAA deal, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest. As Lazonick and colleague Matt Hopkins argue in a recent piece for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Musk has advanced through a “perilous system of corporate governance” driven by shareholder primacy—fueling inequality and eroding America’s technological leadership. His tenure at DOGE is simply more of the same: dismantling oversight, channeling public resources into private ventures, and treating government as just another asset to extract.
Musk’s corporate empire—Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink—owes much of its success to taxpayer-funded research and government support. Tesla was launched with the help of federal loans and electric vehicle subsidies. SpaceX builds on decades of NASA-funded R&D and now depends on billion-dollar public contracts. Even Neuralink draws heavily on publicly funded neuroscience work. Despite the mythology of private-sector genius, these companies are deeply rooted in public investment. Yet the public sees little return.
And the mindset isn’t limited to Musk. President Donald Trump and his family are taking the corporate model Lazonick describes to new heights, using government as a platform for private enrichment. Eric Trump recently promoted the family’s latest crypto venture, making the president a major crypto player while shaping federal policy toward that very industry. The Trump family’s 60% stake in World Liberty Financial, now attracting major investment, has intensified concerns over conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, under Eric’s leadership, the Trump Organization has struck a controversial $5.5 billion deal with a Qatari state firm to build a luxury golf resort—despite Trump’s previous pledge to avoid foreign deals while in office.
Trump has also issued executive orders to “streamline” federal procurement and contract reviews. While marketed as anti-waste measures, critics see them as a backdoor for directing government business to favored contractors, including those with family ties. The line between public service and private gain has rarely been thinner.
Lazonick warns that the stakes are high. When corporations prioritize shareholder payouts over real investment, society loses—but when governments adopt the same model, the consequences are compounded. We’re not just talking about fragile companies. We’re talking about the erosion of public institutions, rising inequality, and a democracy that serves fewer and fewer people.
To reverse course, Lazonick argues we need deep structural reform in how corporations—and by extension, governments—operate. That means banning stock buybacks; reining in executive compensation tied to manipulated stock performance; and reinvesting profits in innovation, workers, and communities. It means embracing a stakeholder model of governance that sees corporations not just as wealth machines, but as stewards of social value.
Because if we don’t fix these systemic flaws, the looting won’t stop. It’ll only deepen—and spread.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Scale of Musk's DOGE Conflicts of Interest 'Should Alarm Every American'
"The wealthiest man in the world is working to dismantle the very same federal departments and agencies tasked with overseeing and placing checks on his businesses," says Public Citizen in a new analysis.
May 08, 2025
Elon Musk, the world's richest person and de facto head of the Trump administration's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, "has had a direct business interest in over 70% of the agencies and departments targeted by DOGE since its inception," according to an analysis published Thursday by a leading U.S. consumer advocacy group.
The Public Citizen report, titled Duplicitous Oligarchy Grifting Endlessly, "maps out the entities DOGE has targeted and identifies which ones carry a known conflict of interest for Elon Musk's business entanglements" as the executive office leads the Trump administration's purge of federal agencies.
"The wealthiest man in the world is working to dismantle the very same federal departments and agencies tasked with overseeing and placing checks on his businesses," the report states. "He also now is adjacent to and could potentially access sensitive and potentially proprietary information from his biggest competitors in the various industries that have made him wealthy. He also has personal business interests that could shape what his DOGE project considers ripe for cuts."
Elon Musk's DOGE has spent the last several months dismantling the departments & agencies that regulate HIS businesses. Our report found that Musk has a direct business interest in over 70% of the agencies & departments DOGE targeted. The conflicts of interest are endless.
— Public Citizen (@publiccitizen.bsky.social) May 8, 2025 at 11:46 AM
Elizabeth Beavers, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said in a statement that "it should alarm every American that the wealthiest man in the world has spent the last several months dismantling the same departments and agencies tasked with regulating his businesses."
"Musk's role as the most powerful person in government makes it highly unlikely that any regulator will crack down on his corporations and surely will make agency leaders look more favorably at Musk companies as potential government contractors," Beavers added.
The report considers Musk—who has signaled he will leave DOGE—to have a conflict of interest with a federal agency when one of his companies has received contracts or grants from the department, has an interest in its proprietary data, and is subject to its regulation or enforcement regime.
Public Citizen's analysis highlights interests with federal agencies including:
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Musk wants to abolish, would be in charge of regulating a proposed payments processing partnership between Visa and Musk's social media platform X;
- Department of Justice, which is investigating electric automaker Tesla and possibly Musk as its CEO;
- Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates Musk's SpaceX;
- Food and Drug Administration, where some of the more than 1,000 fired staffers were reviewing Musk's Nueralink brain implants;
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which has awarded SpaceX approximately $15 billion in contracts;
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which regulates Teslas, was hit with a 10% workforce reduction since President Donald Trump took office;
- Securities and Exchange Commission, which has ongoing enforcement actions against Musk, including fines as high as $150 million for failing to file disclosure forms regarding shares of Twitter, which he bought in 2022; and
- United States Agency for International Development, which was investigating whether Russia had improperly gained access to Musk's Starlink satellite internet system.
Musk—whose companies have tens of billions of dollars worth of government contracts—also has conflicts of interest with the departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Energy. SpaceX, for example, holds Pentagon contracts worth around $8 billion, including nearly $6 billion for the National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 2 program.
Critics have laughed off the White House's assertion that Musk would self-police his conflicts of interest by recusing himself when DOGE and his business interests overlap.
"The report's findings make clear that this approach is deeply and incurably flawed—and that urgent action by Congress is required to safeguard the government from Musk's self-dealing and grift," Public Citizen said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular