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
vivek ramaswamy
Watchdogs, Unions Target DOGE With Lawsuits Mere Minutes Into Trump Administration
"This fight is about fairness, accountability, and the integrity of our government," said AFGE national president Everett Kelley.
Jan 20, 2025
The legal fight over President Donald Trump's "Department of Government Efficiency" kicked off less than hour into his presidency with a flurry of lawsuits filed in federal court—including multiple that allege the body is in violation of the the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Trump tapped billionaire and Tesla CEO Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to run the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was conceived by Trump to help aid with cuts to government spending and regulation. (Ramaswamy, however, is reportedly departing DOGE to launch a bid for Ohio governor).
In a Monday statement announcing one of the lawsuits, Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, said that "allowing unelected billionaires to run roughshod over essential services without being transparent about their operations does not achieve the efficiency the American people want to see from their government and only threatens to further undermine the public's trust."
Democracy Forward is serving as co-legal counsel in one of three lawsuits alleging Federal Advisory Committee Act violations. That complaint was filed by a diverse group of plaintiffs, including the advocacy organization the American Public Health Association, the union the American Federation of Teachers, the veterans group the Minority Veterans of America, the progressive veterans group VoteVets Action Fund, the consumer advocacy group the Center for Auto Safety, and the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
A second was filed by the watchdog group Public Citizen, the watchdog nonprofit State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the federal employees union the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). A third was filed by the public interest firm the National Security Counselors.
"This fight is about fairness, accountability, and the integrity of our government," said AFGE national president Everett Kelley in a statement Monday. "Federal employees are not the problem—they are the solution. They deserve to have their voices heard in decisions that affect their work, their agencies, and the public they serve."
Plaintiffs in the first three suits argue that DOGE is operating as a federal advisory committee but not adhering to regulations overseeing those bodies.
Under the 1972 law, federal advisory committees—bodies that advise federal decision-makers on policy, which are also known as FACAs—must do things like furnish meeting minutes and make their meetings open to the public. The groups must also establish a charter and ensure the viewpoints of its members are "fairly balanced."
According to the complaint co-authored by lawyers with Democracy Forward and CREW, the defendants—who include DOGE and the Office of Management and Budget—"have taken no action to comply with FACA, including by making a formal determination that DOGE's creation serves the public interest, nor have they filed a charter identifying the scope of DOGE’s work."
The lawsuit also alleges that "DOGE's membership does not include anyone who brings the perspective of the people and communities that will be most directly affected by the drastic cuts to the federal programs and services that DOGE will recommend."
The complaint co-authored by Public Citizen also makes the same argument regarding balanced viewpoints. Each of the plaintiffs listed in that suit appealed to have representatives from their respective groups join DOGE in order to offer expertise, according to the filing.
" Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy both hold financial interests that will be directly affected by federal budgetary policies—presenting substantial conflict of interest concerns," said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, in an early January statement regarding her request to join DOGE.
Two of Musk's companies account for at least $15.4 billion in government contracts over the past 10 years, according to New York Times reporting from October. Ramaswamy's perch atop DOGE could also present conflicts of interest stemming from financial interests he has in multiple companies with exposure to the federal government, the Times reported before revelations of his plans to leave DOGE.
Also Monday, the conservation organization the Center for Biological Diversity sued to obtain public records showing how "people claiming to represent DOGE" have communicated with the White House since the presidential transition began.
In t complaint, the Center for Biological Diversity argues that they filed an unfilled public records request with the Office of Management and Budget for materials that would "shed valuable light on any directives or communications with OMB regarding DOGE and its objectives, which will shed light on the new administration's intended operations and responses as they take office."
"Whether it's Trump or Elon Musk who's really running the government, we're a nation of laws and the people have a right to know what Musk and his cronies have been up to during the transition," said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Public Interest Law Firm to Sue DOGE Within Minutes of Trump's Swearing In
Other critics of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency have also argued that it runs afoul of regulations governing federal advisory committees.
Jan 20, 2025
The public interest law firm National Security Counselors says it will file a lawsuit in federal court challenging the "Department of Government Efficiency," a nongovernmental entity spearheaded by President-elect Donald Trump to help advise on cuts to government spending and regulation, within minutes of Trump's swearing in, according to The Washington Post.
The complaint alleges that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) meets the requirements to be considered a "federal advisory committee"—groups that are known as FACAs—and therefore must follow regulations outlined in a 1972 law governing how FACAs operate. FACAs must, for example, file a charter with Congress, keep regular minutes of meetings, and ensure meetings are open to the public. DOGE doesn't appear to have taken those steps, according to the Post.
The watchdog group Public Citizen has also criticized DOGE for failing to adhere to FACA requirements, which stipulate that "membership of the advisory committee [must] be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee." To help remedy this, the co-presidents of Public Citizen—Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman—last week requested that the Trump transition team co-chairs appoint them to serve on DOGE.
"As things stand, DOGE's membership falls far short of satisfying FACA's fair-balance requirement," the two wrote. They also point out that the duo tapped to lead DOGE, billionaire and GOP megadonor Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, both stand to potentially benefit financially from lessened federal regulation. CBS News reported Sunday that Ramaswamy is expected to depart DOGE and announce a bid for Ohio governor.
Kel McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors who authored the lawsuit, told the Post that "we're not trying to say DOGE can't exist. Advisory committees like DOGE have been around for decades. We're just saying that DOGE can't exist without following the law."
Another source the Post spoke with, Sam Hammond of the Foundation for American Innovation—who has been a fan of DOGE's efforts—told the paper that until Trump actually treats DOGE as a FACA, it doesn't need to follow FACA reporting rules. "DOGE isn't a federal advisory committee because DOGE doesn't really exist. DOGE is a branding exercise, a shorthand for Trump's government reform efforts," he said.
But early January reporting from the Post indicates that DOGE is more than just a branding exercise. Citing anonymous sources, the outlet reported that aides with DOGE have spoken to staffers at more than a dozen federal agencies to "begin preliminary interviews that will shape the tech executives' enormous ambitions to tame Washington's sprawling bureaucracy." There has also been a hiring sprint. DOGE is aiming to have nearly 100 staff in place by Trump's inauguration, according to the paper.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hey Elon and Vivek! Here's What a Real 'Department of Government Efficiency' Would Do
A new report identifies what a DOGE "based on evidence, not ideology, would include—from slashing drug prices to ending privatized Medicare to reducing the wasteful Pentagon budget."
Jan 15, 2025
While the U.S. Senate on Wednesday held confirmation hearings for several of President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees, the watchdog Public Citizen sounded the alarm about a new commission and its billionaire leaders, who don't require congressional oversight but could significantly impact federal agencies, regulations, and spending.
Despite being called the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE is not a government department. It is a presidential advisory commission that Trump announced after his November win. He has asked billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead it.
Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman on Monday wrote to Trump's transition team, asking to join DOGE. While their group has concerns about the commission's "structure and mission," including potential conflicts of interest regarding Musk and Ramaswamy's financials, the watchdog leaders made the case that they could serve "as voices for the interests of consumers and the public who are the beneficiaries of federal regulatory and spending programs."
"There is nothing 'efficient' about hitting a pre-determined target for spending cuts, least of all one that is infeasible."
The pair highlighted that their appointment "would be an important step towards compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act," and outlined some ideas they have "to slash drug prices, end privatized Medicare, reduce the wasteful Pentagon budget."
Weissman expanded on the group's recommendations in a Wednesday report titled DOGE Delusions: A Real-World Plan to Reject Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Misguided Agenda, Crack Down on Corporate Handouts, Tax the Rich, and Invest for the Future.
"Every sign from DOGE suggests that it aims to use 'efficiency' as a cover to shrink government, benefit corporations by cutting regulations, and advance a predetermined ideological agenda," Weissman said in a Wednesday statement. "This report identifies what an efficiency agenda based on evidence, not ideology, would include—from slashing drug prices to ending privatized Medicare to reducing the wasteful Pentagon budget."
The report's introduction notes that Trump and Musk's suggestions that DOGE would cut $2 trillion in yearly spending, even though "many commentators have pointed out the effective impossibility of cutting $2 trillion annually from the federal budget, given that all federal discretionary spending—including the Pentagon budget and veterans' benefits—totals less than $2 trillion."
Musk even
admitted last week that $2 trillion is unlikely, after which experts said his lower target of $1 trillion is still "too large."
"Few would argue with the purported goal of 'government efficiency,' but there is nothing 'efficient' about hitting a pre-determined target for spending cuts, least of all one that is infeasible," Weissman wrote. "Nor is there anything 'efficient' about ideologically driven notions of shrinking government or corporate profit-driven plans to roll back regulatory protections."
"Additionally, 'efficiency' is not a primary value," he continued. "Whatever the government does, it should strive to do efficiently (mindful of other considerations), but the real question is what the government should be doing in the first place."
The 35-page report features sections on ending Big Pharma's price gouging, shutting down privatized Medicare, cutting Pentagon waste and curbing contractor greed, taxing the rich and corporations, taxing high earners and the wealthy, eliminating oil and gas subsidies, regulating efficiency, the costs of not regulating, investing in the care economy, and investing to avert a climate catastrophe.
Many of the proposals overtly conflict with the priorities of the incoming Trump administration and the new Republican-controlled Congress, which are expected to swiftly and aggressively pursue tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, expansion of Medicare Advantage, and the Big Oil-backed president-elect's campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill" for climate-heating fossil fuels.
The GOP has promoted additional fossil fuel extraction despite the costly and devastating impacts of the climate emergency, as seen with 27 U.S. disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion in 2024—the hottest year on record—and in Los Angeles, California, which is currently enduring what could be "the costliest wildfire disaster in American history."
The Public Citizen report points out that the monetary costs of climate inaction "will severely reduce the size of the global economy. Depending on how quickly we move and how severe we let climate chaos become, the insurance giant Swiss Re suggests the annual dollar costs could be 11% to 14% of total global economic output by 2050—amounting to around $23 trillion annually—and around 7% of North American economic output. These costs will compound and grow even worse over time."
The watchdog estimates that one of its related proposals—ending handouts to fossil fuel companies—would save about $20 billion annually. Ending privatized Medicare would save $100 billion each year, and modest cuts to the Pentagon budget would save $100 billion yearly. More serious defense cuts could save $200 billion, the same figure for measures to reduce prescription drug prices. The biggest savings from the group's recommendations would come from fair tax reforms, at $500 billion annually.
"If DOGE is interested in saving taxpayers and consumers money and making sound investments that will generate a positive return to the government and society," the report concludes, "there is a clear set of evidence-based measures for it to pursue."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Modest Proposal From Two Longtime Defenders of the Common Good: Let Us Join DOGE
"We can offer views that are untainted by the appearance of corruption or self-dealing."
Jan 13, 2025
Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman on Monday requested to serve on U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency "as voices for the interests of consumers and the public who are the beneficiaries of federal regulatory and spending programs."
Shortly after Trump's November victory, the Republican announced that he asked billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead DOGE, a presidential advisory commission that he said would work "to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies."
Since then, numerous watchdog groups, Democratic lawmakers, and others have sounded the alarm about DOGE and its leaders, blasting the commission as a thinly veiled attack on federal programs—including Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—connected to the GOP trifecta's effort to pass more tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations.
"Public Citizen has concerns about DOGE's structure and mission," the group's co-presidents wrote to Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, co-chairs of Trump's transition team. "In structure, an advisory committee led by individuals such as Messrs. Musk and Ramaswamy who hold financial interests that will be directly affected by federal budgetary policies presents substantial conflict of interest concerns that threaten to undermine public confidence in the committee's recommendations to the administration."
"Mr. Trump and OMB should take steps to ensure that DOGE's advice and recommendations take into consideration the viewpoints of the consumers and citizens who would be directly affected."
Musk, the world's richest person, has leadership roles at companies including Tesla, SpaceX, and X. He has often been at Trump's side in the lead-up to next week's inauguration. Ramaswamy, who ran for president in the latest cycle before ultimately backing Trump, has founded a pharmaceutical company and an investment firm.
Gilbert and Weissman wrote that DOGE's mission to advise the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "on how to 'slash excess regulation' and 'cut wasteful expenditures' puts at risk important consumer safeguards and public protections, because it focuses only on eliminating rules and spending without considering the other half of the picture: more efficiently regulating corporations to better protect consumers and the public from harmful corporate practices, and making sound and efficient public investments."
"In light of the significant influence that DOGE is expected to have on the administration's fiscal and regulatory policy," they argued, "Mr. Trump and OMB should take steps to ensure that DOGE's advice and recommendations take into consideration the viewpoints of the consumers and citizens who would be directly affected by the regulatory and spending proposals that DOGE will advance, not only the viewpoint of wealthy businesspeople."
The pair made the case that their appointment to the commission "would not raise conflict of interest concerns."
Before Gilbert joined Public Citizen, she was an advocate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and worked as a campaign director to pass legislation on social justice and environmental issues for various organizations. Weissman previously directed the corporate accountability group Essential Action, edited the magazine Multinational Monitor, and worked as a public interest attorney at the Center for Study of Responsive Law.
"Unlike Musk, neither Rob nor I, nor Public Citizen, has a financial interest in federal government contracts and spending. In bringing the consumer and public perspective to DOGE, we can offer views that are untainted by the appearance of corruption or self-dealing," Gilbert said in a statement.
Weissman emphasized that "all signs suggest the nonrepresentative DOGE co-chairs aim to use 'efficiency' as a cover to drive a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda, and an ideologically driven social service cuts program. This would constitute an anti-efficiency agenda."
"On the other hand, Lisa and I are prepared to offer a range of evidence-based efficiency proposals—to slash drug prices, end privatized Medicare, reduce the wasteful Pentagon budget—that would save American taxpayers and consumers hundreds of billions of dollars every year," he explained. "We also have recommendations for smart, efficient public investments—in human development and to address climate change—that will have a positive monetary return for the government and society."
As the letter highlights, Public Citizen—which "has worked to hold the government and corporations accountable to the people, including by focusing on research and advocacy with respect to regulation of health, safety, consumer finance, and the environment" since its founding in 1971—has already offered DOGE some recommendations.
"Consistent with Public Citizen's mission—and that of DOGE—Public Citizen on December 20, 2024, sent Messrs. Musk and Ramaswamy a letter proposing two measures that would save the government and taxpayers billions of dollars, while improving health and access to medicines: authorizing generic competition to anti-obesity medications and implementing the Medicare drug price negotiation and inflation rebate programs to lower drug prices," Gilbert and Weissman wrote.
They also noted that appointing them to DOGE "would be an important step towards compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires 'the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.'"
In addition to outlining concerns about Musk and Ramaswamy, they detailed that "DOGE member Katie Miller's background is in handling press relations for government officials. William McGinley worked as a lawyer for various Republican Party groups and big law firms. Other people reported in the media as connected with DOGE also appear to have corporate backgrounds. These individuals lack the consumer and public interest perspective needed if Mr. Trump expects DOGE to have any hope of complying with FACA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Musk Admission Exposes 'DOGE's Deeply Unpopular and Unrealistic Agenda'
"Americans see right through Musk's scheme to pay for his own tax breaks by defunding Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare," said one critic.
Jan 09, 2025
Mega-billionaire Elon Musk conceded Wednesday that he's not likely to achieve his fantastical goal of slashing $2 trillion from the federal budget, an admission that one critic said underscores the folly of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
"President-elect [Donald] Trump hasn't even taken office and Elon Musk is already admitting failure on DOGE's deeply unpopular and unrealistic agenda," Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement. "Americans see right through Musk's scheme to pay for his own tax breaks by defunding Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare."
Musk, the world's richest man and a close ally of Trump, said in an interview Wednesday that cutting $2 trillion in federal spending would be an "epic outcome" but described it as a "best-case" scenario. Economists have dismissed Musk's $2 trillion target as absurd, given that the entire annual discretionary budget was $1.6 trillion for Fiscal Year 2024.
Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, said Thursday that Musk's lower target of $1 trillion in cuts is also "too large," noting that "if you protect Social Security, Medicare, vets, and defense, it would mean cutting every other program by 45% on average." Republican lawmakers have floated similarly outlandish cuts.
Opponents of the Department of Government Efficiency—an advisory commission set to be led by Musk and fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy—have warned it is a thinly veiled effort to target Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other nondiscretionary programs, a concern amplified by recent comments from GOP supporters of the panel.
"I am a strong advocate of discussing this and reevaluating them, and I do believe, at the end of the day, there will be some cut," Rep. Greg Lopez (R-Colo.) said of Medicare and Social Security outside of the first meeting of the House DOGE Caucus.
Musk said ahead of the 2024 elections—on which he spent heavily to influence—that spending cuts he envisions would "necessarily" bring "some temporary hardship," but he hasn't specifically detailed which programs he would target.
"If the incoming president follows through on even a fraction of the $2 trillion in cuts that Musk and his allies have promised, the pain will be felt well beyond struggling small-town America," journalist Conor Lynch wrote for Truthdig earlier this week. "Veterans, especially, who voted overwhelmingly for the president-elect, could be in for a rude awakening."
"Shortly after being tapped to be Musk's co-chair at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Vivek Ramaswamy posted on X that the first order of business should be to eliminate all spending on programs with expired authorizations from Congress, which amounts to over half a trillion dollars," Lynch noted. "Users were quick to point out that if Trump followed Ramaswamy's advice, he would instantly defund healthcare for veterans, which is by far the largest spending program on that list."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Taking on Musk, Sanders Says Corporate Abuse of H-1B Visa Program Must End
"We need an economy that works for all, not just the few. And one important way forward in that direction is to bring about major reforms in the H-1B program."
Jan 02, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a longtime advocate of reforming H-1B visas, on Thursday reiterated his argument that "widespread corporate abuse" of the guest worker program must end amid a heated battle among Republican President-elect Donald Trump's allies.
"Elon Musk and a number of other billionaire tech company owners have argued that this federal program is vital to our economy because of the scarcity of highly skilled American engineers and other tech workers. I disagree," said Sanders (I-Vt.), a prominent advocate of pro-worker policies including raising the federal minimum wage, in a lengthy statement.
"The main function of the H-1B visa program and other guest worker initiatives is not to hire 'the best and the brightest,' but rather to replace good-paying American jobs with low-wage indentured servants from abroad," he asserted. "The cheaper the labor they hire, the more money the billionaires make."
"If this program is really supposed to be about importing workers with highly advanced degrees in science and technology, why are H-1B guest workers being employed as dog trainers, massage therapists, cooks, and English teachers?"
The fight has pitted some far-right, anti-immigrant Trump supporters against Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaires charged with leading the president-elect's proposed Department of Government Efficiency. Musk, who was born in South Africa and is now the world's richest person, has said he once had an H-1B visa and declared last week that "I will go to war on this issue."
Musk is also CEO of the electric vehicle company Tesla and has used H-1B visas as an employer. So has Trump. The incoming president—who in 2016 pledged to eliminate "rampant, widespread" abuse of "H-1B as a cheap labor program"—said Saturday that "I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I've been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It's a great program."
Faced with accusations that those remarks represented a shift from his previous criticism of the program, Trump told Fox News on Tuesday: "I didn't change my mind. I've always felt we have to have the most competent people in our country, and we need competent people... We need smart people coming into our country. We need a lot of people coming in. We're going to have jobs like we've never had before."
As
Common Dreams reported Sunday, progressives are arguing that both the anti-immigrant and billionaire supporters of Trump are wrong. Krystal Ball, co-host of the online news show "Breaking Points," said that "the truth is if you are struggling it's likely because of billionaire robber barons like Trump, Elon, and Vivek, who rig the rules to screw regular people."
Sanders noted that "in 2022 and 2023, the top 30 corporations using this program laid off at least 85,000 American workers while they hired over 34,000 new H-1B guest workers. There are estimates that as many as 33% of all new information technology jobs in America are being filled by guest workers. Further, according to Census Bureau data, there are millions of Americans with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math who are not currently employed in those professions."
Taking aim at just one of Musk's companies on Thursday, the senator asked: "If there is really a shortage of skilled tech workers in America, why did Tesla lay off over 7,500 American workers this year—including many software developers and engineers at its factory in Austin, Texas—while being approved to employ thousands of H-1B guest workers?"
"Moreover, if these jobs are only going to 'the best and brightest,' why has Tesla employed H-1B guest workers as associate accountants for as little as $58,000, associate mechanical engineers for as little as $70,000 a year, and associate material planners for as little as $80,000 a year?" he continued. "Those don't sound like highly specialized jobs that are for the top 0.1% as Musk claimed this week."
The senator shared his statement on the Musk-owned social media platform X, formerly called Twitter. Multiple other users shared videos of Sanders criticizing the H-1B program on television and the Senate floor going back to 2007, his first year in the chamber.
"If this program is really supposed to be about importing workers with highly advanced degrees in science and technology, why are H-1B guest workers being employed as dog trainers, massage therapists, cooks, and English teachers?" Sanders asked. "Can we really not find English teachers in America?"
The senator expressed support for using the program as a temporary fix for labor shortages in highly specialized areas while also arguing that "in the long term, if the United States is going to be able to compete in a global economy, we must make sure that we have the best-educated workforce in the world. And one way to help make that happen is to substantially increase the guest worker fees large corporations pay to fund scholarships, apprenticeships, and job training opportunities for American workers."
"Further, we must also significantly raise the minimum wage for guest workers, allow them to easily switch jobs, and make sure that corporations are required to aggressively recruit American workers first before they can hire workers from overseas," he added. "It should never be cheaper for a corporation to hire a guest worker from overseas than an American worker."
While Musk, Ramaswamy, and others "are right" that "we need a highly skilled and well-educated workforce," Sanders said, "the answer is to hire qualified American workers first and to make certain that we have an education system that produces the kind of workforce that our country needs for the jobs of the future. And that's not just engineering. We are in desperate need of more doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers, electricians, plumbers, and a host of other professions."
In addition to blasting the ultrarich beneficiaries of the H-1B program like Musk and Trump, Sanders called out decades-old lies about the impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and permanent normal trade relations with China.
"Thirty years ago, the economic elite and political establishment in both major parties told us not to worry about the loss of blue-collar manufacturing jobs that would come as a result of disastrous unfettered free trade agreements," he said. "They promised that those lost jobs would be more than offset by the many good-paying, white-collar information technology jobs that would be created in the United States."
Sanders stressed that "not only have corporations exported millions of blue-collar manufacturing jobs to China, Mexico, and other low-wage countries, they are now importing hundreds of thousands of low-paid guest workers from abroad to fill the white-collar technology jobs that are available."
"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the richest three people in America now own more wealth than the bottom half of our country, and when the CEOs of major corporations make almost 300 times more than their average workers, we need fundamental changes in our economic policies," he concluded. "We need an economy that works for all, not just the few. And one important way forward in that direction is to bring about major reforms in the H-1B program."
Other progressives echoed the senator—including Nina Turner, who co-chaired his 2020 presidential campaign and said on Thursday that "Sen. Sanders is right. We must stand against worker exploitation in all forms, be it American workers, workers overseas, or immigrant workers here in America. The ruling class wants cheap labor and will game any system to secure it."
Like Turner, Howard University professor Ron Hira, who co-authored the book Outsourcing America, also weighed in on X.
"Sen. Sanders has been leading the fight for H-1B reform for 20 years," Hira said Thursday. "He's made floor speeches and was the only 2016 Dem presidential candidate to publicly criticize Disney for replacing its U.S. workers with H-1Bs. His framing is exactly right. CEOs are trying to pull a fast one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Turning the White House Into a Billionaire Time-Share
It appears that Trump has entered into a power-sharing agreement with Musk and several other wealthy individuals including Vivek Ramaswamy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and David Sacks.
Dec 28, 2024
Democracy decays into oligarchy when a few individuals accumulate most of the political power.
The reelection of Donald Trump has accelerated the decline of the United States into oligarchy. Trump has had billionaire donors for each of his presidential campaigns, but in 2024 the role of these wealthy donors expanded. Donors such as Elon Musk made gigantic contributions to Trump’s campaign; in return for this they are taking an active role in the Trump White House. Perhaps, this time around, Trump turned the oval office into a time-share.
On December 19, Elon Musk led the call for House Republicans to repudiate a continuing resolution they had just negotiated to keep the federal government running through the end of the year. Perhaps Musk’s charter includes coordination with Congress.
When Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy speak of increasing government efficiency, they usually start with services for the unfortunate.
It appears that Trump has entered into a power-sharing agreement with Musk and several other wealthy individuals including Vivek Ramaswamy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and David Sacks. However this arrangement works, it’s likely that the Trump administration will cater to billionaires—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) observed that the 13 billionaires chosen by Trump to serve in his administration have a combined wealth of at least $383 billion.
What do these billionaires want? The oligarchs and billionaires want lower taxes and reduced government regulations. Of course, each billionaire has a particular set of interests; for example, David Sacks, Trump’s “AI and crypto czar,” is a venture capitalist with heavy investment in AI and crypto. Sadly. most of the oligarchs are climate-change deniers.
The oligarchs want more wealth. Robert Reich observes:
Since [1980], the median wage of the bottom 90% has stagnated. The share of the nation’s wealth owned by the richest 400 Americans has quadrupled (from less than 1% to 3.5%) while the share owned by the entire bottom half of America has dropped to 1.3%… The richest 1% of Americans now has more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.
The oligarchs share a fiscally conservative agenda. They intend to shrink the size of the federal government. The particulars vary but the oligarchs are not concerned with the size of the defense budget; their cost-cutting focus is on programs that service the poor and disadvantaged—such as Medicaid. When Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy speak of increasing government efficiency, they usually start with services for the unfortunate.
What are the practical consequences of this shift to oligarchy? It’s unsettling to be in a political situation where we do not understand who is in charge at the White House. We don’t know how power-sharing will work. The relationship between Trump and Congress has been fraught. The shift to oligarchy will make this relationship even more difficult.
Will the oligarchs fix the economy? Trump was elected because he promised to fix the economy. Most Americans believed he would drive down inflation; they thought Trump would reduce the cost of food, housing, and household and medical expenses. Since November 5, Trump has given no indication of how he plans to do this. Perhaps he has lost interest.
During the presidential campaign, Trump said his inflation-fighting agenda would rely upon tariffs, but it’s likely that the oligarchs will influence how Trump’s tariff strategy plays out. Musk has huge business interests in China, and it’s unlikely that he would support a tariff policy that would hurt his relationships with the country.
Trump has appointed a “czar” for immigration (Tom Homan), energy (Doug Burgum), and AI & Crypto (Sacks). Trump has not appointed a czar for inflation. With much fanfare, Trump has appointed a commission on “government efficiency;” they’ve already started meeting. Trump has not appointed to a commission to curb inflation.
After January 20, Trump will own inflation and the economy. Trump’s immigration “purge” will drive up the cost of food. Trump’s tariffs will drive up the cost of household expenses.
Trump’s trying to ignore inflation. Or turn it over to an oligarch co-president. Stay tuned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Call for $2.5 Trillion in Cuts Proves GOP Wants to 'Steal Our Benefits'
"Nearly 60% of mandatory spending is for Medicare and Social Security," noted one expert. "If they don't touch those, they'd have to cut Medicaid to the bone."
Dec 20, 2024
With a potential government shutdown just hours away, House Republican leaders displayed a slide during a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Friday showing a draft agreement proposing $2.5 trillion in net mandatory spending cuts in exchange for raising the U.S. debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion at some point next year.
The slide was seen as further confirmation that Republicans are seriously eyeing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal nutrition assistance—programs that fall under the mandatory spending category.
Though by law Social Security cannot be cut in the reconciliation process that Republicans are planning to use to bypass the Senate filibuster and Democratic opposition in the upcoming Congress, other key programs including Medicare and Medicaid could be vulnerable to the GOP's massive proposed austerity spree.
"The ONLY WAY to cut $2.5 trillion in spending is by slashing Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid," the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works (SSW) wrote on social media in response to the slide. "Republicans want to steal our benefits to pay for their billionaire tax cuts."
Bharat Ramamurti, former deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, wrote that the slide "is a Republican commitment to cut Medicare, Social Security, or veterans' benefits (all to make way for new tax cuts for the rich)."
"There's no way to make this math work otherwise," he added. "Their promise is to cut $2.5 trillion in mandatory spending. Nearly 60% of mandatory spending is for Medicare and Social Security. If they don't touch those, they'd have to cut Medicaid to the bone."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned that the draft agreement means "Republicans are plotting to cut healthcare for seniors and veterans to grease the wheels for tax cuts for giant corporations and billionaires like Elon Musk."
For weeks, Republicans have been discussing potential cuts and sweeping changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—including the addition of new work requirements—to help pay for a fresh round of tax cuts that would largely benefit the richest Americans and large corporations.
Republicans working with Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—the billionaire co-chairs of the soon-to-be-created Department of Government Efficiency—have also signaled that Social Security and Medicare cuts are on the table even after President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on protecting the programs.
"Republicans have made their plan for the new year crystal clear: Ram through massive tax giveaways for the ultra-wealthy and corporations, and pay for them by shaking down programs and agencies that working families rely on," Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens wrote in a Rolling Stone op-ed on Friday. "And they're putting unelected and unaccountable oligarchs—Musk and Ramaswamy—in charge of deciding how much pain Americans will have to tolerate so that the rich can get richer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
If Musk Blocking a Key Spending Bill Isn’t Oligarchy, I Don’t Know What Is
You may not get access to services you depend on just before the holidays because an unelected billionaire shadow president wanted it that way.
Dec 19, 2024
If the government shuts down Saturday, Elon Musk will be largely to blame.
Musk went on a daylong rampage yesterday against the continuing resolution drafted by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and his leadership team to keep the government going.
Musk posted nearly nonstop on his social media platform X about how lawmakers must kill it. “Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!” Musk wrote in one post.
We’re getting a preview of what the next four years will look like—dysfunction in D.C. that will make your life worse, driven by a petulant billionaire with an unquenchable thirst for wealth and power.
Musk—the richest person in the world—was joined in his posting spree by another billionaire, Vivek Ramaswamy, whom President-elect Donald Trump asked to partner with Musk in an effort to slash government spending and reduce the federal budget deficit.
Republicans gauging support for the legislation said they were bleeding votes as a result of Musk’s barrage.
Then, after Musk spent the day telling Republicans not to support the bill, Trump weighed in against it, too. That put the bill on life support.
If this isn’t oligarchy, I don’t know what is.
You may not get access to services you depend on just before the holidays because an unelected billionaire shadow president wanted it that way.
Funding for essentials will be jeopardized—disaster relief, clean water protections, food safety inspections, cancer research, and nutrition programs for children.
Federal workers like air traffic controllers will be required to work without pay just as air travel is about to pick up.
The same goes for members of our military.
Musk effectively blocked a government spending bill by mobilizing his 205 million followers on X and then using his influence on Trump—influence he bought by spending more than $270 million getting Trump elected.
Yet Musk’s concern about the federal deficit seems to disappear whenever Trump and MAGA Republicans talk about passing tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit billionaires like Musk. Tax cuts, I might add, that will balloon the deficit by nearly $5 trillion.
We’re getting a preview of what the next four years will look like—dysfunction in D.C. that will make your life worse, driven by a petulant billionaire with an unquenchable thirst for wealth and power.
A billionaire wielding his influence over the rest of us proves we are in a Second Gilded Age.
But there may be a silver lining to this Gilded Age cloud. The lesson of the First Gilded Age is that when concentrated wealth, corruption, and ensuing hardship for average working Americans become so blatant that they offend the values of the majority of us, we rise up and demand real, systemic change.
It’s only a matter of time. A government shutdown that hurts average working people, engineered by the richest person in the world, might just hasten it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Looming Government Shutdown a 'Terrifying Preview' of Trump and DOGE
"Nothing like a couple billionaires wreaking havoc on working families right before the holidays," said Rep. Mark Pocan.
Dec 18, 2024
U.S. President Trump and his allies, including billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, are blowing up bipartisan efforts to prevent a government shutdown that could begin this weekend with statements opposing a proposed stopgap measure.
"Currently reading the 1,547-page bill to fund the government through mid-March. Expecting every U.S. congressman and senator to do the same," Ramaswamy posted on Musk's social media platform X late Tuesday. Trump has asked the two billionaires to co-lead the forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which they have said will pursue massive cuts to federal regulations and spending.
Musk responded to Ramaswamy early Wednesday, asserting that "this bill should not pass," a sentiment he repeated in several posts throughout the day, as the clock ticked closer to the Friday night deadline set by September legislation.
Ramaswamy also came out against the continuing resolution (CR) Wednesday morning, declaring that a "debt-fueled spending sprees may 'feel good' today, but it's like showering cocaine on an addict." He blasted various provisions, including $100 billion in disaster relief needed after hurricanes as well as funding to renew the Farm Bill for a year, replace the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and raise federal lawmakers' pay.
Donald Trump Jr. then weighed in, taking issue with a provision about subpoenas for U.S. House of Representatives data.
Appearing on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that he was on a text message thread with Ramaswamy and Musk, claimed that "they understand the situation," and suggested he convinced them that the CR must pass.
However, later Wednesday, the president-elect and Vice President-elect JD Vance—who still represents Ohio in the Senate—released a lengthy statement opposing the CR and calling out specific policies, including the subpoena provision and the pay hike for lawmakers.
Trump and Vance—who are set to take over for Democratic President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris next month—also argued that "the most foolish and inept thing ever done by congressional Republicans was allowing our country to hit the debt ceiling in 2025. It was a mistake and is now something that must be addressed."
"Increasing the debt ceiling is not great but we'd rather do it on Biden's watch," the incoming Republican leaders said. "If Democrats won't cooperate on the debt ceiling now, what makes anyone think they would do it in June during our administration?"
"Republicans want to support our farmers, pay for disaster relief, and set our country up for success in 2025," they claimed. "The only way to do that is with a temporary funding bill WITHOUT DEMOCRAT GIVEAWAYS combined with an increase in the debt ceiling. Anything else is a betrayal of our country."
Trump echoed that point in a series of posts on his platform Truth Social, saying that "if Republicans try to pass a clean Continuing Resolution without all of the Democrat 'bells and whistles' that will be so destructive to our Country, all it will do, after January 20th, is bring the mess of the Debt Limit into the Trump Administration, rather than allowing it to take place in the Biden Administration."
"Any Republican that would be so stupid as to do this should, and will, be Primaried," Trump added. "Everything should be done, and fully negotiated, prior to my taking Office on January 20th, 2025."
Citing unnamed sources familiar with Johnson's thinking, outlets including The Hill and Politico reported Wednesday that the House speaker is now considering trying to pass a "clean" CR that would cut provisions such as disaster aid and economic assistance for farmers.
According to Politico, "As GOP members streamed into Johnson's office to pick up gifts and stop by an ironically timed Christmas party, they didn't voice enthusiasm for Trump's demands."
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a Wednesday statement that "Republicans need to stop playing politics with this bipartisan agreement or they will hurt hardworking Americans and create instability across the country."
"President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance ordered Republicans to shut down the government and they are threatening to do just that—while undermining communities recovering from disasters, farmers and ranchers, and community health centers," she continued. "Triggering a damaging government shutdown would hurt families who are gathering to meet with their loved ones and endanger the basic services Americans from veterans to Social Security recipients rely on. A deal is a deal. Republicans should keep their word."
Progressive leaders in Congress suggested that Trump's eleventh-hour statements on the CR were guided by his billionaire allies.
"Democrats and Republicans spent months negotiating a bipartisan agreement to fund our government," noted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "The richest man on Earth, President Elon Musk, doesn't like it. Will Republicans kiss the ring? Billionaires must not be allowed to run our government."
Also taking aim at Musk, Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) said that "an unelected billionaire was crowned co-president by the Republican Party. They've given him the influence to make a damn post that throws a spending bill into limbo cause House Republicans are scared of him. No greater example of oligarchy. Where the ultrawealthy run the show."
Outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) accused House Republicans of "bowing to Elon Musk and pushing us toward a shutdown," which would force active duty service members to work without pay, pause rent and food assistance, and cancel and delay flights right before major holidays.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) quipped: "'President-elect' Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump want to shut down the government. Nothing like a couple billionaires wreaking havoc on working families right before the holidays."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog Public Citizen, similarly said that "an unelected billionaire should not be allowed to shut down the government. Musk's temper tantrum this afternoon—and the speed at which Trump fell in line after being cornered—is a terrifying preview of what a Trump-Musk co-presidency will look like."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was also critical, saying: "House Republicans have been ordered to shut down the government. And hurt the working-class Americans they claim to support. You break the bipartisan agreement, you own the consequences that follow."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tied the anti-CR push to Republicans' ambitions to pass another round of tax cuts for the superrich.
"Remember what this is all about: Trump wants Democrats to agree to raise the debt ceiling so he can pass his massive corporate and billionaire tax cut without a problem," he said. "Shorter version: tax cut for billionaires or the government shuts down for Christmas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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