Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Welcome to the Musk era of unchecked conflicts

Welcome to the Musk era of unchecked conflicts

Elon Musk speaks during CPAC-DC at the Gaylord National Resort in Oxon Hill, M.D., on Feb. 20, 2025.

Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

When the computers arrived at City Hall in January of 2002, they were the talk of the town.

Known as “The Bloomberg,” the system of flat-screen terminals used to crunch real-time market data made famous by their namesake mogul Mike Bloomberg, were sent to populate the new mayor of New York City’s wall-less office, known to his staffers as The Bullpen.


Bloomberg donated the 35 terminals — sparing the city the minimum $1,285 per month to run them — so that his aides could get right to work. “It was just the fastest way to get the office set up with computers,” his comms director said.

But, like Bloomberg himself, they came with potential conflicts of interest. Would Bloomberg profit in any way from installing his proprietary technology? What of his stocks and investments? His financial dealings and media company? Bloomberg wasn’t your typical politician — he stood to benefit significantly from his role as both mayor and mogul.

His transition was much scrutinized. Headlines like “Mayor Brings His Gadgets, And Thorny Conflict Issues” ran in The New York Times and elsewhere. The city Conflicts of Interest Board released reports on his business dealings. Bloomberg ended up stepping down from his management role at his company, resigned from several boards, and his firm said it would not accept tax breaks that it had negotiated with the city, and donated seven other terminals that were being leased by the city.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But while Bloomberg was mostly compliant with rules attempting to deconflict him, he also “greatly blurred the lines between his personal business and the city’s,” with at least 33 of his clients’ firms — including Merrill Lynch — continuing to do business with the city while he was mayor.

It was something of a test case for the complications that can occur when vast sums of money and power mix.

That all seems quaint today, however, when compared with the guy who’s apparently in charge of the U.S. government.

Elon Musk, the billionaire mogul and politics hobbyist, is perhaps now the most conflicted person in the history of American government, and to make matters infinitely worse, he is operating in the shadows.

As head of DOGE — President Trump’s new government efficiency endeavor — Musk is now overseeing nearly every federal agency, including a slew that directly regulate his own businesses, like the FAA, NASA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Needless to say, despite reassuring us that he’ll monitor his own conflicts, they are seemingly everywhere and endless.

Musk’s DOGE has reportedly recommended firing workers at the FDA, which regulates Musk’s Neuralink devices; USAID, which oversaw and financed his Starlink technology; FAA, which regulates SpaceX; CFPB, which regulates Tesla’s financing; NHTSA and NLRB, which are involved in regulating both Tesla and X, formerly Twitter; the SEC, which has investigated Musk’s takeover of Twitter; and ostensibly more to come.

And the FAA has announced it will use Starlink to upgrade the IT networks it uses to manage our skies. Of course, the amount of the contract has not been disclosed as of yet.

Even compared to Trump, who not only entangled his businesses with the presidency, but his own family members, Musk’s simultaneously ambiguous and omnipotent role at DOGE seemingly has him in charge of hiring and firing, budgets, data and information at the very agencies that can make his businesses thrive or suffer.

If that sounds like a bad idea, it definitely is, especially for a guy known to prefer a chainsaw to a scalpel as he goes about the business of “government efficiency.”

It’s sort of like making the arsonist the new fire chief — and the head of HR, and the lead accountant, and the chief information officer — while also awarding him a contract for accelerants.

And the cherry on top is the lack of transparency — White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wouldn’t even say who is actually running DOGE.

But with Musk’s office conveniently inside the White House complex, and a seat at Trump’s first Cabinet meeting this week, the only thing that is clear is he has unprecedented access to the president and nearly all federal agencies.

Even without conflicts that would be an outsized amount of power for someone who was neither elected nor confirmed by the Senate. With them, we could be in for untold new levels of corruption, self-interest, cronyism, and self-motivated vengeance inside the government.

Will voters revolt? Will Republican lawmakers care? Will Democrats be able to stop it? As is becoming the norm under Trump 2.0, we just don’t know.

S.E. Cupp: Welcome to the Musk era of unchecked conflicts was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is shared with permission. S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.

Read More

Trump’s tariff strategy hammers Wall Street

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on March 11, 2025 in New York City. Following the worst day for the markets this year, the Dow was down nearly 500 points in morning trading.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Trump’s tariff strategy hammers Wall Street

The chaos that gripped Wall Street on March 10, 2025, was no accident.

The plummeting stock market, the sharp decline in Bitcoin, and the spike in volatility all pointed to a single, undeniable factor: President Donald Trump’s economic policies, particularly his tariff-heavy approach, have unnerved investors and accelerated fears of an impending recession.

Keep ReadingShow less
Indian talents in the US: the brain drain dilemma
white microscope on top of black table
Photo by Ousa Chea on Unsplash

Indian talents in the US: the brain drain dilemma

As India marches towards its ambitious goal of becoming a “Viksit Bharat” by 2047, as proclaimed by Narendra Modi, a critical challenge threatens this vision: the ongoing exodus of its brightest minds. India aspires to become a global power, but its current development seems to rely more on its population size than on its achievements in science, technology, art, innovation, and the like. This strategic vacuum is particularly glaring in the discussion around the H-1B visa. The Indian government has always attached great importance to the US H-1B visa, regarding it as part of its national interest. However, what is more worth thinking about is: why does India actively support the outflow of outstanding talents from the country?

A report “The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2024” released by the US National Science Foundation shows that in 2021, foreign-born scientists and engineers accounted for about 19% of all science and engineering workers in the United States, and this proportion jumped to about 43% among scientists and engineers with doctoral degrees. Among them, India has become the largest source of foreign-born science and engineering workers, accounting for 29%. “Our dependence on foreign talent, especially our over-reliance on talent from strategic competitors such as India, is like a double-edged sword. It has promoted our scientific and technological progress, but it has also exposed our weaknesses,” in response to this phenomenon, Divyansh Kaushik of the Institute of the Federation of American Scientists, emphasized. Why can’t a country that can cultivate a large number of internationally competitive talents keep them in the country? According to statistics, 75% of H-1B visa holders in the United States are from India, which reflects the structural problems of India’s local job market.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Figurines of manual workers with stacks of coins

Getty Images/Glow Images

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Among the international trade issues making headlines is President Trump’s recent announcement to abandon current U.S. law regarding small, low-value packages containing products purchased by Americans from overseas. The initial Executive Order was paused just days later. But the threat remains, making damaging economic repercussions imminent.

The process for such small-dollar shipments is de minimis entry. The term means “pertaining to tiny or trivial things,” emphasizing why its usage only applies to goods under a lower-priced threshold.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino Freeze Movement: Do Economic Boycotts Create Real Change?
white and black printer paper

Latino Freeze Movement: Do Economic Boycotts Create Real Change?

President Donald Trump has implemented executive orders that some have perceived as targeting Hispanic, Latino communities, particularly in relation to immigration policies, which they argue have contributed to increased tensions and uncertainty among individuals and their families in the United States.

Historically, the Hispanic, Latino community has significant shaped the U.S. economy and culture. As political tensions have escalated in recent weeks, it has led to organized economic activism. One such effort, the Latino Freeze Movement (LFM), has directly responded to Trump’s policies and rhetoric toward the community.

Keep ReadingShow less