Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one key phrase

Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one key phrase

Americans wrapped in a flag

What It Means to Be an American and Fly the Flag

Things are about to get worse for Mike Johnson

Things are about to get worse for Mike Johnson

This really may be the political end for Trump

This really may be the political end for Trump

California’s Governor Race Is a Democratic Nightmare, But There’s One Easy Fix

California’s Governor Race Is a Democratic Nightmare, But There’s One Easy Fix

Musk for speaker of the House? It’s not as crazy as it seems.

AI Elon Musk wielding a gavel
AI image created by Grok
David L. Nevins
By David L. NevinsDec 23, 2024
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins serves as publisher of The Fulcrum. Additionally, Nevins serves as co-founder and Board Chairman of the Bridge Alliance. Nevins brings business acumen, vision and a tireless this-must-and-can-be-done zeal to the burgeoning movement to bridge divides to transform the political process. As a business leader, Nevins excels at building bridges between people and organizations from the right, left and center for civilized conversation and then action. He co-founded the Bridge Alliance because, as he says, “No matter how well managed and how well funded anyone organization is, significant political reform will not happen without an alliance to further collaborative interactions. Together we can and will raise the collective impact of all.” He is a member of the Aspen Institute Society of Fellows, with a focus on the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, he established and continues to work with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program at Penn State University. Nevins graduated with honors in economics from Penn State in 1969 and received an M.B.A. in finance from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971.
See More Writings by author

On Dec. 19, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) floated the idea of Elon Musk being the speaker of the House after the billionaire tech businessman publicly opposed a bipartisan bill to avert a government shutdown.

As crazy as that might sound, some fellow Republicans support the idea, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.). She said that she would be open to supporting Musk for speaker, an idea proposed by other Republicans as Congress barrelled towards government shutdown Friday night.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also endorsed Musk for speaker, though he added that he would also be happy with Musk’s partner in the Department of Government Efficiency, Vivek Ramaswamy, taking up the role. He told talk show host Benny Johnson, “Let them choose one of them, I don't care which one, to be their Speaker,” Lee said. “That would revolutionize everything; it would break up the firm.”

And, of course, Democrats were outraged and started trolling President-elect Donald Trump by calling Musk the “real president.”

“The US Congress this week agreed to fund our government,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on Wednesday. “Elon Musk, who became $200 BILLION richer since Trump was elected, objected. Are Republicans beholden to the American people? Or President Musk? This is oligarchy at work.”

Recently elected Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) wondered to reporters on Thursday: “If Elon Musk is kind of cosplaying co-president here, I don’t know why Trump doesn’t just hand him the Oval Office, or Speaker Johnson should maybe just hand Elon Musk the gavel if they just want that billionaire to run the country.”

According to CBS News, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) joined the fray, repeatedly invoking “President Musk” while speaking with reporters on Thursday.

“Welcome to the Elon Musk presidency,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) wrote on X.

The concept of Musk for Speaker of the House is surely intriguing, evoking two questions:

  • Is it legal?
  • Has it ever been tried before?

The answer is yes on both counts.

On the first question, the U.S. Constitution does not require the speaker to be a member of Congress, although historically, every Speaker has been a House member.

As to whether it has ever been tried before, the answer is actually yes. For example, former Secretary of State Colin Powell was nominated in 2013 and 2015, and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Wis.) and Joe Biden were nominated in 2019.

It's certainly an interesting concept, but it hasn't happened yet.

We’d like to know what our readers think.

  • What do you think about the idea of a speaker who is not an elected member of the House?
  • Does it bother you that the richest man in the world with no elected experience can be speaker of the House?
  • Given how dysfunctional Congress is, might it be a good idea to shake it up from the outside?
  • If Musk became speaker, might that intimidate Trump? Could Trump handle becoming what some think could be a figurehead president, subservient to a younger, richer man? The balance is certainly complex, as is the relationship. Trump has already said he’s the man in charge. How will their dynamic evolve?

Email us your thoughts.

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Latest news

Corruption in Plain Sight
Ethics & Leadership

Corruption in Plain Sight

The interview that could change history
Ethics & Leadership

The interview that could change history

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can
Photo by Girl with red hat on Unsplash

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2025