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
When Leaders Forget They Are Stewards
Public institutions belong to the people they were created to serve, not to the ambitions of those temporarily entrusted with their care.
Jul 01, 2026
As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of America, it’s essential that we look to the past for lessons on how we should move forward during politically turbulent times marked by Americans holding little trust in historically respected institutions, including the federal government.
In 1796, our nation’s first president, George Washington, published his farewell address and in it, he declined to run for a third term despite many Americans wanting him to remain president indefinitely. Washington wanted to be clear that being president was not a lifetime appointment and that America was not a monarchy.
In this address, he also gave us a lesson that too many leaders seem to forget today: that the things we lead do not belong to us. Stewardship is the real assignment.
Recently, when a federal court ordered President Donald Trump’s name removed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, it did more than settle a legal dispute. It served as a reminder that public institutions belong to the people they were created to serve, not to the ambitions of those temporarily entrusted with their care.
As we look ahead to the next 250 years of our nation, America’s leaders must understand that their job is not to leave their name on an institution, but to leave the institution stronger than they found it.
I learned this lesson when I served on the President’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. As an appointee of President Barack Obama in 2011 and later as chair of the committee, I had the privilege of working alongside artists, educators, philanthropists, and public servants who understood that institutions endure only when leaders respect the purpose for which they were created.
The Kennedy Center was established by Congress as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. Its mission was never to advance the ambitions of a particular board, administration, or political figure. It was created to serve the American people.
For more than 50 years, it has welcomed families, students, artists, and visitors from every corner of the nation. It has remained open through changing administrations, economic downturns, and periods of national division. Its purpose has endured because generations of leaders understood that they were caretakers of something larger than themselves.
Today, we see conservatives engaging in a hostile takeover of many of our nation’s key institutions by pushing an ideological agenda that refuses to tell the full, and complicated, story of our nation’s history.
At Smithsonian museums, references to President Trump’s two first-term impeachments have been removed, and the Trump administration issued an executive order that would review and remove exhibits from the Smithsonian Institution that contradict the administration’s distorted view of American history.
In our education system, higher education institutions are threatened with lawsuits and funding cuts for policies and programs that ensure all students have the opportunity to succeed. In states across the country, including Georgia, we have witnessed the passage of laws that restrict an honest and full teaching of our nation’s history—failing to give our children a true understanding of our nation and how we’ve overcome moments of grave injustice.
The understanding that President Washington had in 1796 that our nation’s institutions should not be reshaped in the image of our leadership seems increasingly absent from public life. Too often, leadership is confused with ownership and the focus shifts from mission to personality. Stewardship to control.
Strong leaders do not ask only what they have the power to do. They ask what responsibility requires of them. They understand that power is not permission, popularity is not wisdom, and institutions entrusted to their care are not personal possessions to be reshaped according to their preferences. Institutions thrive when leaders serve the mission. They struggle when the mission begins serving the leader.
When the distinction between serving an institution and owning it disappears, public trust begins to erode. That lesson has remained true since the inception of our nation, and it will remain true for the next 250 years. Once that trust is lost, it can take generations to rebuild.
As workers continue removing the lettering from the Kennedy Center façade, they are carrying out a court order.
But they are also delivering a reminder.
Public institutions belong to the people they were created to serve, not to the ambitions of those temporarily entrusted with their care.
As we look ahead to the next 250 years of our nation, America’s leaders must understand that their job is not to leave their name on an institution, but to leave the institution stronger than they found it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Make No Mistake: We Are in a Civil War
It is time for local and state governments to resist more forcefully the lawlessness and cowardice of an out-of-control federal government under the thumb of Trump.
Jan 27, 2026
He broke it! He did not wait for permission to change things. He simply bent and, in most cases, broke it. If the answer was going to be no, why wait for the no is his strategy. The strategy is to test the basic mores of the country. Don't ask about tearing down the West Wing of the White House. He ordered the dismantling of DEI and government and businesses fell into line. It resulted in one of the biggest reductions in workforce in government employment with workers surprised and left scurrying to find new job security. Vastly significant portions of Black women, estimated 300,000 "lost their good government job." He did not ask for permission to do that. He demanded that historical language be sanitized in museums and on official signage erasing historical social and racial justice messaging. He just did it. As he bombed boats in the Caribbean Sea, killing a hundred people, he did not ask whether it was legal but simply let the incendiary devices fly. The justification offered was that they were bringing drugs to America which was not feasible or truthful given where the boats were. When he commandeered ships carrying oil from Venezuela he did not ask. He hijacked the ships without seeking permission. He sent troops into American cities without respect for local governments using the weight of the national government.
Trump's right-wing agenda has inspired and turned loosed a viciousness embodied in the actions of trained and also hastily onboarded federal law enforcement that are acting more like storm troopers than anything else. Renee Good was shot three times as she served as a monitor observing these storm troopers. She seemed to try and connect appealing to the humanity of the federal agents, as observed on video but was spurned and in futility she tried to drive away. As she turned the wheels on her vehicle to leave the hatred and right-wing zeal of a federal agent stepped in front of her vehicle and discharged his weapon. He killed her for no apparent reason other than she for watching and monitoring the action of these federally protected agents. She was not an immigrant, but she was a mother, wife and an American citizen. They shot her three times. Then approximately two and a half weeks later, early on a Saturday morning Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse at the VA was shoved to the ground, brutally beaten by this death squad and shot nine time in five seconds. He died on the spot. He also was an American citizen exercising his right to protest trying to safeguard the community from this lawless occupation. The Trump administration quickly swung into action to discredit and devalue their lives by calling them "terrorists". This is a word DHS and Christie Noem use to justify any and all ICE shootings and killings. ICE and immigration officials have discharged their weapons into the American public at least 16 times. The headlines, as the media try to collect information, expands not necessarily daily but certainly. In January 2026, The Wall Street Journal identified at least 13 instances of immigration officers "firing at or into civilian vehicles" but by the end of the month that figure was obsolete. There is a violent, murderous hatred embedded in the attitudes of these so-called officers of the law.
Local government has tried to resist. In Montgomery County, Maryland there is currently a bill, The County Values Act, that would require a judicial warrant for ICE to access nonpublic areas in county facilities. It would also prohibit the use of county-owned parking lots, garages and vacant lots for immigration enforcement. There is also The Unmask ICE Act, that would prohibit federal, state and local law enforcement from wearing masks on the job. That seems only fair since because in many jurisdictions it was already illegal for citizens to be masked! Currently some 15 states have proposed bills to prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing masks. The federal law enforcement agencies claim that masks are to protect DHS officers and their families by shielding their identities. That is ironic since cameras are in use by ICE and other federal agencies to build a facial recognition database. There are and has been attempts to pushback against federal masks and the conduct of federal agents. Bills have been proposed in Alaska, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. Each of these legislative bodies are appalled by the dangers of troops in the streets and are seeking to reestablish democratic norms. Twenty-one state attorney generals penned and sent a letter to Members of Congress urging them to pass legislation to prohibit immigration agents from wearing masks. They warned that ICE agents wearing masks “have the effect of terrorizing communities rather than protecting them.” They further stated in the letter that “the commonplace use of masks and the failure of ICE to identify themselves as law enforcement makes everyone less safe and weakens the integrity of our justice systems.” The pushback is admirable and needed but the issues are far more than masks but the overall viciousness and violent attacks being carried out with impunity on American streets against immigrants and citizens alike.
These bills and letters are local governments and political leaders operating within the culture and structure of American conformity where decorum is presented and the traditional rules of law applies. Civil protest and discourse are exercised believing that the structures have power. They have been trained to abide by the rules of civility. Meanwhile the federal behemoth is trampling standard political decorum by bending things until they break and using the weight of the federal government to crush any the resistance. What is needed now and before it is too late is the deliberate creation of a constitutional crisis.
The 10th amendment has swung in opposite streams through US history. Its purpose was to maintain boundaries between the federal government and the states. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. This is one reason why it took so long for slavery to be abolished in the United States. The federal government was restrained in ordering states what to do and nearing the Civil War battles were fought within certain territories of whether they would become a free state or a protectorate of enslavement. It took the Civil War for slavery to be abolished. Then with federal troops stationed in the former slave states there were several years where enfranchisement and relative freedom was advanced. That period is called Reconstruction. The federal government used its powers to enforce political and social inclusion. However, the racists fought back through acts of terror and sabotage until Reconstruction ended with federal troops being withdrawn from the south. Once again, those former slave states were free to institute Black codes and legally enforced racial stratification and separation. The federal government did not intervene for another 100 years until the civil rights movement challenged the legalities of racial segregation by pushing and passing laws using the weight of federal government to restrain the racial excesses of local governments. We in the racial justice movement wanted the federal government to regulate the behavior of the states. So, you can imagine the angst I have in this historical moment for a stronger state and local government.
The irony is that in this historical moment I would like to see a strong local and state government that is able to muster its own law enforcement to confront, challenge, question, apprehend, and arrest masked federal armed marauders. This requires local governments to call upon local law enforcement to be loyal to the local community and committed to protecting the community from the violence being perpetuated by federal authorities.
The local authorities need to have future employment predicated on whether local law enforcement is committed to the safety of the local population or will continue to stand assisting federal agents as they assault the population. They need to be tested as to whether they are more loyal to local government or obedient to federal agents who are racially targeting, terrorizing, assaulting, shooting and killing the local population. This is where the wheat is separated from the chaff. Local government must demand that members of local law enforcement go after masked agents, arrest them for every act that threatens, every person kidnapped without due process, each violation of property rights, and for acts of violence against the local population. In other words, local law enforcement should be pressured to do what they have always done in every social and racial justice uprising - demand order, protect property, people, and make arrest!
We are in a civil war, and the tables of history have turned because the federal government is trampling over all the rights at the local level.
This historical moment demands that we find strategies to bend it back and maybe do our own breaking in this horrific moment of American history. When this federal behemoth monster is subdued then we can redress normal order. However, as the behemoth tramples the landscape in America bending things until he breaks them something more graphic and demonstrative is need then bills that are proposed and passed but have little to no impact. Local governments and the states need to precipitate a national and constitutional crisis where the local governments challenge the legalities of national government in more than letters, bills and grassroots petitions.
Local governments need to demand local officials to enforce local laws, and in most cases laws that are already on the books. This would be the wake-up call that is needed for the courts to pay closer attention, create a vigorous debate in Congress, and challenge the powers of these grotesque beings that are occupying our cities and towns and shooting and killing our neighbors and friends.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Attack on Lisa Cook Is an Attack on Fed Independence and Black Leadership
Dr. Cook has earned her position through expertise, service, and integrity. She should be allowed to continue her work without intimidation or political interference.
Sep 04, 2025
When US President Donald Trump attempted to remove Federal Reserve Governor Dr. Lisa D. Cook from her post, he didn’t just target one individual. He threatened the independence of the Federal Reserve and sent a chilling message to every leader serving in public life: No matter your qualifications, your service is never safe from political retribution.
Trump’s attack on Dr. Cook is also yet another attempt to delegitimize Black leadership across the highest levels of American government. That’s why my organization, the Joint Center—America’s leading Black think tank—convened a coalition of leading civil rights, economic justice, and policy organizations to stand with Dr. Cook and push back.
Dr. Cook’s credentials are beyond dispute. She’s a world-class economist who’s advised governments during global crises, served at multiple levels of the Federal Reserve System, and earned acclaim as a professor at Michigan State University.
She was elected by Midwestern community bankers to the boards of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago—proof of the broad trust she’s earned across the financial community.
In 2022, Dr. Cook made history as the first Black woman appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Her appointment was a breakthrough for Black representation in economic governance. Today, that breakthrough is under threat.
President Trump’s attempt to force her out is part of a broader pattern. Time and again, he’s sought to discredit and remove Black leaders from positions of power—from insulting Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) by calling her “low IQ” to attacking prosecutors like Letitia James and Fani Willis, undermining federal judges like Tanya Chutkan, and dismissing the leadership of Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.
Attacking the tenure of a Federal Reserve governor—especially one as qualified and effective as Dr. Cook—undermines that independence and destabilizes the very system Trump claims to protect.
Trump has also ignored the will of DC residents and Mayor Muriel Bowser by ordering National Guard troops into the city’s streets.
These attacks are not random. They’re part of a deliberate strategy to weaken and delegitimize Black leadership across our institutions—from the courts to the military to economic governance.
The attack on Dr. Cook marks a dangerous escalation. The Federal Reserve is one of the most important independent institutions in our democracy. It safeguards our economy and makes decisions that affect virtually every family and business in this country.
Attacking the tenure of a Federal Reserve governor—especially one as qualified and effective as Dr. Cook—undermines that independence and destabilizes the very system Trump claims to protect.
We cannot allow this to stand.
In moments like this, silence is complicity. That is why we are calling on policymakers, civic leaders, and the public to speak out—not just in defense of Dr. Cook, but in defense of every public servant facing illegitimate harassment as part of a politically motivated attack.
The coalition’s message is simple: Dr. Cook has earned her position through expertise, service, and integrity. She should be allowed to continue her work without intimidation or political interference.
If we fail to take action now, we risk sending a dangerous message to future generations of leaders: No matter how qualified you are, your leadership can be erased at the whim of those in power. We also risk losing some of the small gains in Black political representation that has emerged over the last 30 years.
We must not let that message stand.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Create Shared Prosperity, Rebuild Trust in Government
Government needs to deliver for everyone, not just the wealthy. Local government can lead the way.
Aug 31, 2025
We all want to live in healthy, safe, and thriving communities. We expect our tax dollars to serve the common good, and we want to trust that government represents our interests. But today, the federal government falls far short of this goal; only 22% of Americans trust it.
Local governments, in many places but not all, continue to deliver for their residents. They are leading the fight against climate change without federal support. They took charge in their immediate and ongoing responses to Covid-19. And they continue to resist, creating sanctuary cities to protect immigrant communities threatened during the first Trump administration. Today, local governments prepare for a difficult future shaped by the policies of the current Trump administration, including the unnecessary deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles and Washington, DC.
Yet the work of local governments has never been more difficult. Americans continue to lose trust in government, and as conditions worsen, faith in government erodes further. This decline is not accidental—it stems from decades of funding cuts, deregulation, misinformation, voter suppression, and government missteps. It feels like the biggest beneficiaries of government today are the wealthy and large corporations, which continue to make record profits despite recessions, pandemics, and climate change.
The lack of trust in government and the concentration of wealth and power in a small elite are connected. A deliberate effort to undermine the government’s ability to deliver for all feeds a downward spiral of distrust. Consider how US President Donald Trump empowered Elon Musk to lead mass layoffs and weaken or shut down critical agencies, undermining services people depend on. This move fuels privatization, deregulation, wealth concentration, and further distrust in government.
So, where do we go from here? For government to ensure shared prosperity, we must first rebuild trust. That requires government to deliver for everyone, not just the wealthy.
The long road to rebuilding trust must start with rejecting the fearmongering and scarcity mentality that has left us isolated and unhappy. We must demand better results from both government and our economic system. We need a system rooted in mutual care and shared prosperity.
This transformation begins from the ground up; it depends on each of us cultivating a culture of belonging and connection in our daily lives. I see this willingness in the empathy and care people show for neighbors, the environment, and future generations. Government can correct course only if we engage with it and demand more—because we are committed to doing better ourselves. Over time, civic participation can rebuild trust in government—though not as it is, but as a transformed institution committed to nurturing relationships.
Local governments can create opportunities for residents to relate to each other better and forge stronger relationships. Because local government is closer to its constituents than state or federal agencies, it can offer more immediate opportunities for civic engagement and connection. I believe assigning local government the role of cultivating a sense of belonging is key to achieving shared economic prosperity and to overcoming the polarization that currently grips our communities.
Local governments can evolve by partnering with local leaders and civil society groups that—in many communities—are fulfilling key roles once held by local governments. By building true, trusting collaborations, governments can expand their capacity and impact, reshape how communities relate to public institutions, and restore trust and faith in their work.
When we share responsibility for our communities—when neighbors connect, participate, and help shape our governance—we push government to serve all of us better.
To be clear, local governments cannot create a culture of belonging alone. Many governments need to commit to a sustained process of reconciliation, especially with communities of color, to overcome their checkered past. As I write this essay, immigrant communities in Los Angeles and throughout the country are being terrorized by federal law enforcement agencies, often with the support of local law enforcement, separating families, traumatizing neighbors and neighborhoods, and severely eroding trust between the government and communities. There is no way around the fact that governments at each scale have inflicted harm on communities. Nor can we ignore the fact that government is how we organize how we live. What government looks like, and how it interacts with us, remains our choice—that is the essence of democracy.
Some might view the suggestion that governments should cultivate residents’ sense of connection and belonging as an example of “mandate creep.” But if not local government, then who is responsible for nurturing connections between neighbors and fostering the culture of our communities?
Consider the processes involved in governance—updating general plans, budgeting, making and implementing new laws. These processes have a tremendous impact on our lives, yet few people participate. What difference would it make if more people were involved? If local governments had more resources and expertise to increase participation, could we achieve better governance? If local governments prioritized participation and equipped public servants to engage more residents directly, perhaps we would feel more satisfied—or at least better understand the decisions shaping our lives.
Local governments can also foster a culture of belonging by creating and maintaining spaces for people to meet and build community. Sidewalks, streets, parks, libraries, transit, community centers, and gardens—spaces that local governments oversee—constitute the public realm. While we often view these places as hard infrastructure, their potential to foster “soft infrastructure” such as civic relationships and human capital remains underdeveloped. What if governments designed public spaces to maximize connection? During the pandemic, they temporarily used infrastructure this way—through slow streets, free transit, health services in community centers, and redesigned parks. If it worked then, why not all the time?
Local governments can further strengthen communities through local culture and civic pride. Where we come from shapes our sense of belonging. Even in a transient, digital world, most people spend much of their lives in one place. Local culture—its history, art, celebrations, customs, and people—plays a big role in how we feel about our communities and can bind us together. I saw this in Berlin during the 48 Stunden Neukölln festival, where streets, shops, and homes displayed art for the public, turning the entire neighborhood into a vibrant gallery. People mingled, explored, and took pride in their community. We can use cultural programming to deepen civic pride and participation, tying culture more closely to governance.
Ultimately, rebuilding faith in government begins with rebuilding faith in each other. When we share responsibility for our communities—when neighbors connect, participate, and help shape our governance—we push government to serve all of us better. The journey to restore faith in government and the process of restoring our social bonds are inseparable. Only by working together can we create the thriving, healthy communities we all desire.
Keep ReadingShow Less
NY Court Ruling Will Force Retired Workers Into Privatized, For-Profit Medicare Advantage Plans
"Nobody will ever want to work for New York City again. Zero trust. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam & betrayal. Enough!" wrote one New York City councilmember.
Jun 19, 2025
New York State's highest court on Wednesday ruled against city retirees who had sought to block an effort by Mayor Eric Adams' administration to move them onto a for-profit, privatized Medicare Advantage plan.
In a unanimous decision, New York Court of Appeals Judge Shirley Troutman wrote that petitioners in the case are not entitled to "promissory estoppel" cause of action, the argument that the retirees throughout their employment with the city were promised traditional Medicare benefits when they retired.
According to Gothamist, "the court also ruled that the retirees did not have a legally binding promise from the city that their coverage would remain unchanged." The Wednesday ruling overruled a state Supreme Court judge’s decision that had prevented the Adams administration from making the switch, though the Court of Appeals said there were still issues in the case that should be sent back down to the Supreme Court, a lower court in New York's state system.
Medicare Advantage plans are run by private health insurers who receive money from the federal government to provide Medicare-covered services. Medicare Advantage enrollment around the country is growing, though the Medicare Advantage system has been accused of offering poor care and boosting corporate profits. A 2022 investigation by The New York Times found that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to juice their profits by billions of dollars.
The move to switch the city's 250,000 retirees to Medicare Advantage stems from a 2018 agreement between leaders in city government and major public employee unions to cut $600 million from the city's healthcare spending, according to the outlet The City.
"While we are disappointed in the ruling by the Court of Appeals, the solution to protecting seniors' healthcare has always been with the City Council and the mayor," said Marianne Pizzitola, leader of the Organization of Public Service Retirees, which opposes the switch.
"The City of New York should never, ever be screwing over retirees—and neither should the courts. Nobody will ever want to work for New York City again. Zero trust. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam & betrayal. Enough! City Hall clearly doesn't care about retirees," wrote Justin Brannan, New York City Council Finance Committee Chair and Democratic candidate for city comptroller, in response to the ruling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Trump 'Took a Hatchet' to Major US Climate Report by Dismissing All Its Authors
"The only beneficiaries of disrupting or killing this report are the fossil fuel industry and those intent on boosting oil and gas profits," said one person who was working on the 6th National Climate Assessment.
Apr 29, 2025
Hundreds of scientists and experts working on the National Climate Assessment were dismissed by the Trump administration via email on Monday, casting doubt on the future of the federal government's flagship climate report, which was slated to come out by 2028.
On Monday, those working on the 6th version of the report received an email from the Trump administration that the scope of the assessment is being "reevaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990"—in reference to the legislation that mandated the creation of the National Climate Assessment.
"We are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles," continued the email, the text of which was included in a Monday statement from the group the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Today, the Trump administration senselessly took a hatchet to a crucial and comprehensive U.S. climate science report by dismissing its authors without cause or a plan," said Dr. Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an author for the 6th National Climate Assessment (NCA) on the coasts chapter, said on Monday. "People around the nation rely on the NCA to understand how climate change is impacting their daily lives already and what to expect in the future. While not policy prescriptive, the findings of previous reports underscore the importance of cutting heat-trapping emissions and investing in climate resilience to protect communities and the economy."
"The only beneficiaries of disrupting or killing this report are the fossil fuel industry and those intent on boosting oil and gas profits at the expense of people's health and the nation's economic well-being," added Cleetus.
Since entering office, Trump has signed executive orders aimed at bolstering oil, gas, and coal and installed Cabinet members with ties to the fossil fuel industry.
The assessment, which is required by Congress, has been released every few years since 2000 and gives a rundown of how global warming is impacting different sectors of the economy, ecosystems, and communities. The energy and environment focused outlet E&E News reported Tuesday that the report is "seen by experts as the definitive body of research about how global warming is transforming the country."
The report last came out in 2023. That National Climate Assessment established that the "effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region" of the United States. The report's authors warned that absent deeper cuts in fossil fuel emissions and accelerated adaption efforts compared to what's currently underway, "severe climate risks to the United States will continue to grow."
Earlier in April, the Trump administration enacted cuts to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which oversees the production of the National Climate Assessment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing 'Considerable Red Flags,' Oversight Dems Probe White House Use of Musk's Starlink
Elon Musk's "dual position as the recipient of federal contracts and a White House adviser creates a troubling and obvious conflict of interest," wrote two Democratic members of the U.S. House Oversight Committee.
Apr 07, 2025
Two Democrats on the U.S. House Oversight Committee are seeking more information about the federal government's use of billionaire Elon Musk's Starlink, the satellite internet service operated by his company SpaceX, specifically at the White House complex and at the U.S. General Services Administration.
Reps. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking member of the committee, and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) are looking for proof that new usage of Starlink technologies is "secure and will not enrich Mr. Musk in violation of federal ethics rules," according to a letter they sent Monday to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Director of Office Administration Joshua Fisher, and Acting Administrator at GSA Stephen Ehikian.
The letter references March reporting from The New York Times, which stated that Starlink is now accessible across the White House campus, after Starlink "donated" the service. NBC News reported last month that GSA had adopted Starlink for its internet access at the request of Musk's staff, citing an unnamed source. Musk is also an adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump.
"Donations such as this raise considerable red flags as to whether Mr. Musk is using his position in the federal government to benefit his companies," wrote the two Democrats.
A journalist at ProPublica observed this reported donation of Starlink resembles a tactic used by another company, Microsoft, during the Biden administration: offering free trials to get government locked in to using their technology.
"It doesn't matter if it was Microsoft last year or Starlink today or another company tomorrow," Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law studies at George Washington University Law School, told ProPublica. "Anytime you're doing this, it's a back door around the competition processes that ensure we have the best goods and services from the best vendors."
In their letter, the two Democrats also highlighted that Musk's dual role as head of Starlink and "apparent leader" of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency—which reporting indicates could soon come to a close—"raises significant ethical, security, and regulatory implications that warrant immediate attention."
What's more, his "dual position as the recipient of federal contracts and a White House adviser creates a troubling and obvious conflict of interest, raising the risk of undue influence and potential misuse of federal contracts for personal or corporate gain."
This is far from the first time that concerns around potential conflicts of interests regarding Musk's businesses and his role in the federal government have been raised.
Last month, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and acting Inspector General at the Transportation Department Mitch Behm demanding an investigation into whether Musk's activities at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have violated the criminal conflict of interest statute, citing reporting that Musk's Starlink is involved in upgrading a crucial communication system at the FAA.
In their letter, Connolly and Brown said they are also concerned that the recent installation of Starlink at the White House raises potential cybersecurity and national security concerns.
The pair requested a list of information and documents from the White House and GSA, including all documents and communications relating to the legal or ethical implications of the White House and GSA using Starlink given Musk's role in the federal government, as well as documents and communications regarding any security assessments related to the use of Starlink.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy