On Thursday, March 13, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s acting Inspector General. The complaint asks them to investigate if Elon Musk unlawfully influenced government decision-making and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracts involving his satellite business.
CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.
CLC’s Kedric Payne said the following about the ethics complaint: “ The American people deserve an unimpeded investigation to determine whether Elon Musk has violated conflict of interest laws by prioritizing his own personal financial interests over the public good,” said Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel and senior director for ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Based on his public statements, it appears that Musk has corrupted decision-making at the FAA involving the agency's use of his satellite internet business. Corruption happens when government officials abuse their powerful positions for personal gain — Elon Musk owes it to the American public to remove himself from overseeing policy decisions connected to his personal profits.”
The complaint states the following: Campaign Legal Center writes to request that the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) investigate whether the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) business transactions with Elon Musk’s satellite internet company are improper due to violations of the criminal conflict of interest law, 18 U.S.C. § 208. Specifically, public reports establish that the FAA began using Starlink services and considering contracts with the company in response to Musk’s requests, who is a special government employee (“SGE”) and the CEO of Starlink. Multiple FAA officials, including the Department of Transportation Secretary and one of the Department’s lead engineers, publicly stated that Musk is the source of the directives for the FAA to implement Starlink technology. If Musk participated in or directed discussions with FAA employees concerning business transactions with Starlink, he may have violated the criminal conflict of interest law and corrupted FAA’s business relationship with Starlink.
For over 60 years, federal law has banned executive branch employees, including SGEs, from participating in business transactions where they may receive a financial benefit. Courts have found that this law is intended to protect public trust in government because when an executive branch employee profits from a government contract, the contract is tainted, and it diminishes confidence in government.4 OIG is responsible for investigating ethics issues connected to FAA’s business partners, and its stated priorities include “fraud schemes that significantly impact DOT funds [and] employee integrity violations.
Accordingly, the evidence suggesting that Musk has blatantly and improperly influenced the FAA’s decision to work with Starlink warrants a thorough OIG fact-finding. The public has a right to know that their tax dollars are being spent in the public’s best interest and not to benefit a government employee’s financial interests. OIG should investigate the FAA’s recent decision to use Starlink and Musk’s conduct to determine whether a criminal violation occurred.
Federal Criminal Law Prohibits Special Government Employees from Influencing an Agency’s Business Transactions Involving their Financial Interests
Pursuant to the federal criminal conflicts of interest law, “an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government . . . including a special Government employee,” shall not participate “personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a . . . contract . . . or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he . . . has a financial interest.
The full complaint with citations can be viewed by clicking HERE.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivers a keynote speech at the 62nd Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Feb. 14, 2026, in Munich, Germany.
Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Finally free from the demands of being chief archivist of the United States, secretary of state, national security adviser and unofficial viceroy of Venezuela, Marco Rubio made his way to the Munich Security Conference last weekend to deliver a major address.
I shouldn’t make fun. Rubio, unlike so many major figures in this administration, is a bona fide serious person. Indeed, that’s why President Trump keeps piling responsibilities on him. Rubio knows what he’s talking about and cares about policy. He is hardly a free agent; Trump is still president after all. But in an administration full of people willing to act like social media trolls, Rubio stands out for being serious. And I welcome that.
But just because Rubio made a serious argument, that doesn’t mean it was wholly persuasive. Part of his goal was to repair some of the damage done by his boss, who not long ago threatened to blow up the North Atlantic alliance by snatching Greenland away from Denmark. Rubio’s conciliatory language was welcome, but it hardly set things right.
Whether it was his intent or not, Rubio had more success in offering a contrast with Vice President JD Vance, who used the Munich conference last year as a platform to insult allies and provide fan service to his followers on X. Rubio’s speech was the one Vance should have given, if the goal was to offer a serious argument about Trump’s “vision” for the Western alliance. I put “vision” in scare quotes because it’s unclear to me that Trump actually has one, but the broader MAGA crowd is desperate to construct a coherent theory of their case.
So what’s that case? That Western Civilization is a real thing, America is not only part of it but also its leader, and it will do the hard things required to fix it.
In Rubio’s story, America and Europe embraced policies in the 1990s that amounted to the “managed decline” of the West. European governments were free riders on America’s military might and allowed their defense capabilities to atrophy as they funded bloated welfare states and inefficient regulatory regimes. Free trade, mass migration and an infatuation with “the rules-based global order” eroded national sovereignty, undermined the “cohesion of our societies” and fueled the “de-industrialization” of our economies. The remedy for these things? Reversing course on those policies and embracing the hard reality that strength and power drive events on the global stage.
“The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending,” Rubio said, “because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life.”
I agree with some of this — to a point. And, honestly, given how refreshing it is to hear a grown-up argument from this administration, it feels churlish to quibble.
But, for starters, the simple fact is that Western Civilization is an abstraction, and so are nations and peoples. And that’s fine. Abstractions — like love, patriotism, moral principles, justice — are really important. Our “way of life” is largely defined and understood through abstractions: freedom, the American dream, democracy, etc. What is the “Great” in Make America Great Again, if not an abstraction?
This is important because the administration’s defenders ridicule or dismiss any principled objection critics raise as fastidious gitchy-goo eggheadery. Trump tramples the rule of law, pardons cronies, tries to steal an election and violates free market principles willy-nilly. And if you complain, it’s because you’re a goody-goody fool.
As White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said not long ago, “we live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.” Rubio said it better, but it’s the same idea.
There are other problems with Rubio’s story. At the start of the 1990s, the EU’s economy was 9% bigger than ours. In 2025 we were nearly twice as rich as Europe. If Europe was “ripping us off,” they have a funny way of showing it. America hasn’t “deindustrialized.” The manufacturing sector has grown during all of this decline, though not as much as the service sector, where we are a behemoth. We have shed manufacturing jobs, but that has more to do with automation than immigration. Moreover, the trends Rubio describes are not unique to America. Manufacturing tends to shrink as countries get richer.
That’s an important point because Rubio, like his boss, blames all of our economic problems on bad politicians and pretends that good politicians can fix them through sheer force of will.
I think Rubio is wrong, but I salute him for making his case seriously.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.