RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "elon musk"

These powerful Americans yawned when Trump threatened to cancel midterms

The lack of market reaction to the news that Donald Trump ordered his Justice Department to investigate criminal charges against Fed Chair Jerome Powell surprises many people. After all, everyone knows that the claims about cost overruns being the basis for the investigation are nonsense. Trump wants to threaten Powell with criminal charges because he ignored Trump’s demand that he lower interest rates.

This ordinarily would be seen as a very big deal. Ever since Richard Nixon, presidents have been reluctant to be seen as pressuring the Fed. In fact, their concern about this issue often seemed absurd to my view. President Joe Biden didn’t want his Council of Economic Advisors to even comment on interest rate policy, as though giving a view based on the economic data would be undue pressure.

But there is a big difference between presenting an economic argument and threatening to imprison a Fed chair who disagrees. And we now see which side Trump comes down on.

But apparently, the markets are just fine with this new threat. The major stock indexes all rose on Monday, although bond prices fell slightly, pushing long-term rates higher. The dollar also fell modestly.

The non-reaction of the stock markets might seem surprising. After all, the independent Fed is considered a sacred feature of US prosperity. There is no shortage of economists who will insist that a Fed that is subordinate to the whims of a president is a quick route to double-digit or even triple-digit inflation. (I’m more agnostic on this one, but the markets generally don’t listen to me.)

Anyhow, Trump is now not just looking to fire an insubordinate Fed chair, he’s looking to throw him in prison. And the markets just yawned.

This reaction should cause us to start asking how the markets might react if Trump just cancels or outright steals the 2026 elections to keep his lackeys in control of Congress. Under any other modern president, the fear of a cancelled or stolen election would be silly. While they might have used dubious tactics leading up to an election, we could be comfortable that the votes would be counted, and the outcome would be binding. (Florida in 2000 is a major exception.) No one ever suggested that an election would be cancelled.

But Trump has made it clear that he considers both cancellation and ordering that some votes not be counted as serious options in his recent New York Times interview. No one can be safe in assuming that we will have a normal democratic election this year.

Given this reality, we might want to speculate on how the markets would react if Trump decides to end American democracy. We now know that most of the big money boys couldn’t care less about democracy. Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Tim Cook have been happy to cozy up to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, even as he violates one democratic norm after another. Elon Musk has made it clear that he has contempt for democracy, insofar as it means allowing non-white people to vote.

This gang would obviously have no moral issues with a cancelled or stolen election. But what about the economics?

Trump has already made it clear that he will favor businesses whose leaders praise him and punish those who criticize him. His most recent effort in this direction was saying that he intended to ban ExxonMobil from access to Venezuelan oil because its CEO said what every oil analyst has said since Trump became president of that country: it will be difficult for companies to profitably invest there.

The economies of countries where the leader can reward or punish companies on a whim tend not to do very well. The courts have provided a limited check on Trump’s whims, as has even this pathetic Congress. However, if Trump is deciding who serves in Congress, the checks will be gone. We will have full-rule by our demented 79-year-old president.

Perhaps markets will be fine with that. With enough rear-end licking, some companies may still do fine, but it would seem that, on the straight economics, most people with money would probably prefer to invest in a serious country. Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.

  • Dean Baker is the co-founder and the senior economist of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of several books, including "Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better bargain for Working People," "The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive," "The United States Since 1980," "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (with Mark Weisbrot), and "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.

MAGA being torn apart by right-wing squabbles as Elon Musk's X makeover backfires: report

Elon Musk's takeover and rebrand of Twitter — now X — is now ripping apart the MAGA movement, according to a report Monday.

Musk rebranded the platform in 2023, changing its moderation rules and prompting a rise in hate speech that has created a series of complaints among conservatives, Politico reported.

"Three years later, Musk’s control of the platform, now re-branded as 'X,' has delivered its fair share of benefits for conservatives — not least of which was Musk’s successful full-court press to elect Donald Trump in 2024," according to Politico. "But as the elite echelons of the MAGA movement slowly descend into obscure online disagreements and testy turf wars between rival influencers, conservatives are starting to confront an unpleasant possibility: that the right’s domination of X is doing more to divide the MAGA movement than unite it."

Several notable MAGA voices have made "digital exits" and left the app, citing their concerns about its divisive nature, including Ohio governor candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Breitbart editor Raheem Kassam.

Changes under Musk, including his push to stop bots, has also unveiled something MAGA did not expect to happen.

"Musk’s efforts to combat bot activity have in turn backfired on conservatives: A new feature rolled out earlier this year displaying the country where an account is based inadvertently revealed that many of the most active pro-Trump and MAGA accounts are based abroad," Politico reported.

And that's not the only worry among MAGA followers.

"Increasingly, some big names on the right are coming to worry that X’s algorithm — which elevates short-form video and audio clips over links to articles or essays — is undermining the right’s political cohesion by promoting the most outlandish and conspiracy-minded members of Trump’s coalition," according to Politico.

Charlie Kirk's death and the rising conspiracy theories surrounding his killing have also revealed rising battles among MAGA influencers and just how much infighting has emerged in the movement.

"The turmoil and division generated on X is becoming a problem for elected Republicans, too," Politico reported. "Even as MAGA voters remain largely united behind Trump and his agenda, Republicans are being forced to spend time and political capital addressing squabbling among MAGA’s elite activists and influencers."

'We're not going to back down': UK hits back at Trump admin over Elon Musk probe

The UK government has hit back at a US administration official's threat over a probe into Elon Musk and X.

Online safety watchdog OFCOM is investigating the social media app for the sharing of non-consensual sex images which are artificially generated through the Grok tool, Sky News reported. Concerns over the deepfakes spread on the platform have since been aired in the UK's House of Commons, the elected house of representatives.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said, "I have been informed this morning that X is acting to ensure full compliance with UK law. If so, that is welcome, but we're not going to back down, and they must act."

"We will take the necessary measures. We will strengthen existing laws and prepare for legislation if it needs to go further, and Ofcom will continue its independent investigation."

Donald Trump's administration representative, Sarah B. Rogers, weighed in on the investigation into X yesterday (January 13).

Rogers, an under secretary of state for public diplomacy, says the department will wait for the verdict of OFCOM on Musk's platform before it responds.

Rogers, speaking to GB News, said, "I would say from America's perspective... nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let's wait and see what OFCOM does and we'll see what America does in response. This is an issue dear to us, and I think we would certainly want to respond."

"Our leadership understands this because President Trump was himself a target of censorship," Rogers said. "President Trump was banned by Twitter - the old regime before Elon bought it."

"You have to take that comparison seriously. That's why our President cares about this issue - because people couldn't deal with his popularity, they couldn't deal with his success, and they tried to just shut him up so no one could hear him."

OFCOM's powers fall under the Online Safety Act, which states that online platforms have to make sure they're not hosting illegal content.

If X is found to not comply with the Online Safety Act, Ofcom can issue a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue or £18m, and if that is not enough, can go as far as getting a court approval to block the site.

Trump admin issues ominous threat as UK mulls banning Musk's X: 'Nothing is off the table'

The Department of State has warned "nothing is off the table" should the UK move to ban Elon Musk's social media platform, X.

Donald Trump's administration representative, Sarah B. Rogers, weighed in on the investigation into X. Rogers, an under secretary of state for public diplomacy, says the department will wait for the verdict of OFCOM on Musk's platform before it responds. OFCOM, the UK's online safety and communications watchdog, is investigating X over concerns about AI-generated deepfakes spread on the platform.

Rogers, speaking to GB News, said, "I would say from America's perspective... nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let's wait and see what OFCOM does and we'll see what America does in response. This is an issue dear to us, and I think we would certainly want to respond."

The Department of State representative said there was an increased interest from Trump and the administration in the investigation because the President and Vice President, JD Vance, are "huge champions" of free speech.

"Our leadership understands this because President Trump was himself a target of censorship," Rogers said. "President Trump was banned by Twitter - the old regime before Elon bought it."

"You have to take that comparison seriously. That's why our President cares about this issue - because people couldn't deal with his popularity, they couldn't deal with his success, and they tried to just shut him up so no one could hear him."

The Prime Minister of the UK, Keir Starmer, says the government will act fast should X fail the OFCOM investigation. He said, "If X cannot control Grok, we will - and we'll do it fast, because if you profit from harm and abuse, you lose the right to self regulate."

Despite Rogers' claims for protecting free speech, it appears Vice President JD Vance is on the side of regulating the social media app's AI tool. According to Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, both he and Vance are in agreement on what needs to happen with Grok's AI-generated images.

Lammy told The Guardian last week, "We discussed Greenland and I also raised with him the Grok issue and the horrendous, horrific situation in which this new technology is allowing deepfakes and the manipulation of images of women and children, which is just absolutely abhorrent. He agreed with me that it was entirely unacceptable."

"I think he recognised the very seriousness with which images of women and children could be manipulated in this way, and he recognised how despicable, unacceptable, that is and I found him sympathetic to that position. And in fact, we’ve been in touch again, today, about this very serious issue."

'I'm begging you': Elon Musk gets impassioned plea as he gets 'back on the Trump train'

Elon Musk has "renewed his bromance" with President Donald Trump and dropped his plans to create a third party.

The richest man in the world has been quietly cutting checks for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and appears to be moving back to politics, The Guardian's Arwa Mahdawi wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday.

"On New Year’s Day, Musk made his renewed support public by responding to a post by a conservative influencer claiming Musk was 'going all-in funding Republicans,'" Mahdawi wrote. "Musk appeared to confirm this with the statement: 'America is toast if the radical left wins.' Looks like the billionaire has now abandoned his third-party plans and is back on the Trump train."

The death of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk was apparently the catalyst to bring Trump and Musk back together, she wrote.

"So who do we have to thank for two of the most awful men in the world joining forces again? Well, the ghost of Charlie Kirk for one," Mahdawi wrote. "Before he was murdered, Kirk talked about how he was desperate to get Trump and Musk to reconcile. And his death seems to have achieved that: Kirk’s memorial in September brought the two men together for their first public appearance since the feud."

Vice President JD Vance, who has signaled interest in running for president in 2028, "has been very busy brokering a truce and getting Musk to rethink his third-party plans" and has his own motivations to keep the billionaire in his circle, wrote Mahdawi.

"Musk’s unlimited funds played a large part in getting Trump back in the White House and you imagine Vance is keen to keep the money spigot on," Mahdawi added.

She concluded with a plea.

'Please sir, I’m begging you, can you take up a nice hobby? Or spend some quality time with your army of children, perhaps? Or get in one of your rockets and go for a very long ride in outer space? Just do something that isn’t meddling in the government! Because I have a feeling this new political act is going to end very badly for everyone."

Rubio's shocking decision makes RFK Jr.'s cuts look like child's play

For much of 2025, public-health debates in the United States have focused on the damage being caused by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with his reckless vaccine policy decisions, deep funding cuts, the wholesale firing of experienced public health professionals across Health and Human Services agencies, and the loss of trust in public health institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

His actions weakened domestic health protections and further eroded trust in science, evidence based decision making and the scientific method itself.

But even accounting for all of Kennedy’s harm, the most destructive public health decision of 2025 didn’t come from his agency. It came from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio via elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

That decision will cost more lives, undermine more health systems and increase global health risk more than any other public health policy choice made this year. It also delivered a severe blow to America’s ability to lead through diplomacy.

USAID provided key global public health infrastructure

For decades, USAID was one of the most important public-health institutions on the planet, arguably more consequential than the World Health Organization or the Gates Foundation. It served as a core pillar of global disease prevention and health-system stability. Today, it’s gone.

USAID funded (and held partners accountable for) infectious disease surveillance, HIV treatment, tuberculosis and malaria prevention, maternal and child health services, clean water and sanitation systems, nutrition programs for mothers and infants, vaccine delivery infrastructure and health workforce training in developing nations.

USAID’s work stopped outbreaks before they became pandemics. It reduced mass displacement. It stabilized regions where collapsing health systems fuel hunger, conflict and migration. It improved women’s health, helped families plan their futures and helped entire populations escape poverty.

USAID focused on upstream prevention on a global scale. It was also one of our most effective tools for building diplomatic influence.

Hard power, soft power: why USAID mattered

In international affairs, countries project power in two ways. Hard power relies on forces like military strength, sanctions and the threat of punishment. Soft power relies on trust, humanitarian aid, scientific cooperation and being seen as a reliable partner acting in good faith.

USAID was a cornerstone of American soft power. When the U.S. helped countries prevent disease, strengthen health systems, and keep children alive and families out of poverty, it built credibility. We earned cooperation and trust. It made American leadership legitimate rather than coercive.

Eliminating USAID didn’t just dismantle public health infrastructure; it dramatically weakened our soft power. It broadcasts that the U.S. is transactional, unreliable and disinterested in shared global responsibility.

That erosion of trust will make cooperation during future emergencies far more difficult not only for this administration, but for future ones that may want to restore America’s role as a force for good.

Damage is under way

Thanks to Secretary Rubio disease surveillance is collapsing, meaning outbreaks are detected later or not at all. Interruptions in HIV and tuberculosis treatment are fueling drug resistance, which will inevitably reach us as well.

Gaps in maternal and child health services are translating into preventable deaths. Weakening vaccine infrastructure invites the return of diseases that were on the decline.

Responsibility for this decision is clear. As Secretary of State, Rubio presided over, defended, and even trumpeted the dismantling of USAID. President Donald Trump supported it. Elon Musk helped drive the ideological and operational wrecking ball that made it possible.

Together, they reframed global public health as expendable “foreign aid” rather than what it is: A frontline defense against disease, instability, humanitarian catastrophe and a key source of American soft power.

What history will remember

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done real damage to public health in 2025. But history will judge the elimination of USAID as something even worse: an abdication of public health responsibility trading several decades of disease prevention and diplomacy for personal ambition and professional survival.

History will remember Rubio’s decision as an abandonment of global public health and soft power, not dollars “saved.”

  • Will Humble is a long-time public health enthusiast and is currently the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA). His 40 years in public health include more than 2 decades at the Arizona Department of Health Services, where he served in various roles including as the Director from 2009 to 2015. He continues to be involved in health policy in his role as the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association.

Professor flags 'underreported story' about Elon Musk's 'unorthodox power' in Trump admin

The Department of Government Efficiency is still active and has an "unorthodox power" according to a political analyst.

Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat says the ongoing work of DOGE, not as a central government project but "entrenched in departments across the administration, is an issue that will have long-term consequences for the public. Writing in NOTUS, the professor of history and Italian studies at New York University suggested there should be more awareness of just how much power DOGE still maintains.

The department had been established at the start of the year by Elon Musk, though his departure from the administration at the end of May seemed to call time on the government efficiency project.

Trump officials have since confirmed the closure of the department, but a Department of Agriculture insider says DOGE officials are still present. Professor Ben-Ghiat wrote, "While the creation and initial activities of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency made news, the media mostly lost interest after Musk announced in April that he was stepping back to focus on his ailing Tesla business and other concerns."

"Today, the real, underreported story is that DOGE has successfully entrenched itself within the Trump administration and continues to exercise significant, unorthodox power as a parallel civil service."

"As a historian of autocracy, I watched with incredulity in early 2025 as Musk’s operatives occupied government buildings — even once blocking members of Congress from entering — and fired thousands of government employees."

An unnamed source speaking to Wired said, "They are in fact burrowed into the agencies like ticks." Musk, in October, also claimed DOGE is "still happening" during an appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast.

Professor Ben-Ghiat considered the possibility of DOGE and the Trump administration having an "autocrat-oligarch relationship." She explained, "The agency may have been disbanded as a centralized entity, but DOGE continues to have a presence across U.S. government agencies."

"All of this represents an innovation in the autocrat-oligarch relationship. Oligarchs normally operate outside government, buying up media or financial properties that they can leverage in service of the autocrat."

"Here the oligarch was given the keys to the castle, with lasting consequences for privacy and national security. In this and other ways, the United States is now serving as a laboratory for the next phase of the autocratic playbook."

DOGE 'evading' law as investigators demand answers on 'what happened' under Musk: report

An ethics board are asking "what happened" under Elon Musk during his brief time as head of the Department of Government Efficiency.

DOGE was established early into Donald Trump's second term as president, but Musk, who headed up the department tasked with cutting government waste, left the administration by the end of May. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington representatives are still trying to establish what happened while Musk was in charge of the department.

CREW deputy chief counsel Nikhel Sus, speaking to The Guardian, said, "I know it feels like all this happened over the course of several years, but the first year of this administration isn’t even done. We still want to know what happened, and we still want the record to be out there, because the public is entitled to this information."

"There are still very basic questions about DOGE's operational structure and activities that have not been answered because the entity has evaded transparency laws and evaded discovery requests," Sus added. "Let’s say DOGE's influence wanes for some temporary period. They could immediately come back in a very strong and decisive way in which they’re operating similar to how they did at the outset of the administration. They would have the apparatus to do that."

Musk has since admitted the department was only "somewhat successful" and that he would probably not re-enter government or the department.

He told former DOGE aide Katie Miller, "We were a little bit successful. We were somewhat successful." Asked whether he would go back and do it again, he replied, "I mean, no, I don’t think so. Would I do it? I mean, I probably... I don't know."

It comes as a political analyst believes the impact of Musk's time in government, albeit brief, will "be felt for years to come". The New Republic's Hafiz Rashid believes the department failed in its aim to cut government spending.

He wrote, "Musk’s decimation of USAID will be felt for years to come. The end of its many life-saving programs around the world has already killed hundreds of thousands of people, and if those programs don’t receive a new source of funding, millions of the world’s destitute will suffer even further. Musk called it a 'criminal organization' that 'needs to die.'"

Five ways to become a billionaire … and how we can all fight back

One of the most notable characteristics of 2025 has been the shamelessness of the billionaire class and the conspicuousness of its corruption.

For many years, whenever I’ve warned that an increasing portion of the nation’s wealth is falling into the hands of an ever-smaller number of people, the moneyed interests have responded: “But that’s just the free market,” or “the free market has decided they deserve it.”

Rubbish. There’s no such thing as a “free market” to begin with. Today’s so-called “free market” is the outcome of political decisions over monopolization, labor organization, private property, finance, trade, taxes, and much more.

Who’s behind these political decisions? Increasingly, the same small number of ultra-rich who have gained disproportionate influence over our politics. They’ve created five ways for themselves to accumulate a billion dollars or more.

1. Exploit a monopoly

Does Jeff Bezos deserve his billions because he founded and built Amazon?

No. Amazon is a monopolist with nearly 40 percent of all e-commerce retail sales in America. In addition, Amazon is protected by a slew of patents granted by the U.S. government.

In 2023, the U.S. government — through the Federal Trade Commission and 17 states— charged Amazon with illegally maintaining a monopoly by crushing competition, inflating prices, and harming consumers through anticompetitive practices like punishing sellers who offer lower prices elsewhere. (The trial is currently scheduled to begin in 2027.)

If the government fully enforced anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws and didn’t give Amazon such broad patents, Bezos would be worth far less.

If anti-monopoly laws were enforced, other titans of high tech would be worth far less, too — among them, Elon Musk, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Oracle’s Larry Ellison.

2. Get insider information

Billionaire Steven A. Cohen headed up a hedge fund firm in which, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department, insider trading was “substantial, pervasive, and on a scale without known precedent in the hedge fund industry.” Nine of Cohen’s present or former employees pleaded guilty or were convicted. Cohen got off with a fine, changed the name of his firm, and apparently is back at the game.

Former billionaire investor Bill Hwang was convicted in late 2024 and sentenced to 18 years for fraud related to the collapse of his Archegos Capital Management. The charges focused on his trading on insider information, market manipulation, and fraud.

The crypto market often experiences sharp volatility linked to policy announcements by the Trump regime. Moments after Trump announced new tariffs on China, one inside trader became $150 million richer from a leveraged short position.

Insider trading is endemic in C-suites. SEC researchers have found that corporate executives are twice as likely to sell their stock on the days following their own stock buyback announcements, when their stock prices soar, as they are in the days leading up to the announcements.

If government cracked down on insider trading, hedge fund mavens and top corporate executives wouldn’t be raking in nearly as much money.

3. Buy off politicians

The first Trump tax cut has saved Charles Koch and Koch Industries an estimated $1 to $1.4 billion a year, not even counting tax savings on profits stored offshore and a shrunken estate tax. The second Trump tax cut saved the Kochs even more. They and their affiliated groups spent some $20 million lobbying for the Trump tax cut and $550 million seeking to get Trump elected in 2024. Not a bad return on investment.

Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, sank a quarter of a billion dollars into getting Trump elected in 2024 and is on the way to spending as much if not more trying to keep the House and Senate under Republican control. What does Musk get out of it? Lower taxes on himself and his businesses, rollbacks of regulations that limit his profits, and federal contracts that make him even richer.

Trump and his own family have also reaped big rewards by changing the economy’s rules in their favor. By the end of 2025, they had cleared at least $1.2 billion through their crypto investments — whose value has ballooned in large part because of Trump’s decisions to deregulate crypto and encourage its use.

The value of their crypto investments also rose with Trump’s pardon of Changpeng “CZ” Zhao — the billionaire co-founder of the Binance crypto exchange who pleaded guilty to money laundering charges. Binance was closely tied to World Liberty Financial, actively managed by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

Earlier this year, a state-controlled United Arab Emirates firm bought $100 million of cryptocurrency issued by World Liberty Financial — essentially a huge deposit for World Liberty, which could then generate returns in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

Trump’s wealth soared again in mid-December on news that Trump Media & Technology Group, the publicly traded company whose biggest shareholder is Trump, is merging with TAE Technologies, a privately held fusion technology company. The additional wealth was the consequence of more self-dealing by Trump: His Department of Energy had created an Office of Fusion to support the commercialization of fusion.

The family company of billionaire Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also been making a bundle off political influence. Lutnick’s company helped raise capital for Toby Neugebauer, a billionaire who’s building one of the giant data centers that will power the next generation of AI, banking millions in fees in the process. Lutnick has also been twisting the arms of American allies and dangling policy favors in exchange for investments in U.S. industrial projects that have given his family’s clients access to foreign capital.

If we had tough anti-corruption laws preventing such political payoffs and self-dealing, the Kochs, Musks, Trumps, Lutnicks, and other high-rollers wouldn’t get the spoils of their political influence: tax breaks, regulatory rollbacks, and government subsidies that have enlarged their fortunes.

4. Extort big investors

Adam Neumann conned J.P. Morgan, SoftBank, and other investors to sink hundreds of millions into WeWork, an office-sharing startup. Neumann used some of the money to buy buildings he leased back to WeWork and to enjoy a lifestyle that included a $60 million private jet. WeWork never made a nickel of profit.

After Neumann was forced to disclose his personal conflicts of interest, WeWork’s initial public offering fell apart, and the company’s estimated value plummeted. To salvage what they could, investors paid him over $1 billion to exit the board and give up his voting rights. Most other WeWork employees were left holding near-worthless stock options. Thousands were set to be laid off.

A few wealthy fraudsters have been found guilty and forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains (in 2024, Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange, whose net worth reached an estimated $26 billion, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding customers and investors of nearly $10 billion).

But many have not. If we had tougher anti-fraud laws and better enforcement, Neumann and others like him wouldn’t be billionaires.

5. Get money from relatives

A new UBS report finds that a record number — 91 people — became billionaires in 2025 through inheritance. Their total bounty was almost $300 billion.

It’s the beginning of what’s expected to be the largest inter-generational wealth transfer in history, during which heirs will inherit at least $5.9 trillion over the next 15 years.

An estimated 45 percent of all wealth in America is inherited. That’s because, under U.S. tax law — which is itself largely a product of lobbying by the wealthy — the capital gains of one generation are wiped out when those assets are transferred to the next.

As Mitt Romney (remember him?) recently pointed out, had Elon Musk purchased his Tesla stock for, say, $1 billion and held it until his death, and if it were then worth $500 billion, he would never pay the 24 percent federal capital gains tax on the $499 billion profit. Under the current tax code, when Musk’s heirs inherit his stock, the assets will be treated as if the heirs purchased it for $500 billion. So no one will ever pay taxes on the $499 billion capital gain.

If unearned income were treated the same as earned income under the tax code, America’s non-working rich wouldn’t be billionaires. And if capital gains weren’t eliminated at death, many heirs wouldn’t be, either.

The good news is that Americans are becoming increasingly alarmed about the harms billionaires are inflicting on our system. A Harris poll released last month finds that over half of Americans (53 percent) believe that billionaires are threatening democracy.

In addition, a significant 71 percent of Americans believe there should be a wealth tax. And a majority believe there should be a cap on how much wealth a person can accumulate.

These schemes also threaten capitalism itself. The system doesn’t work when monopolies, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud, and large amounts of inherited wealth are rigging it. As the system loses public trust, it begins to unravel.

When and if sane and honest people ever again control the U.S. government, one of the first things they should do is enact a tax on large accumulations of wealth.

Also an end to the current rule that allows all capital gains to be erased when the owners of the capital die, thereby enabling heirs to inherit all the accumulated wealth tax-free.

Not the least, we must get big money out of politics — to end the bribes and corruption that have distorted capitalism for the benefit of a handful of people at the top. (Here’s a way to do it.)

  • Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
  • Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

Musk's 'ransacking' time in Trump admin will 'be felt for years to come': analysis

Elon Musk's time in Donald Trump's administration will "be felt for years to come," according to a political analyst.

The tech mogul spent less than a year in the president's administration, but his time there has been described as a "ransacking" period. The Tesla CEO was put in as head of the newly founded DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), which The New Republic's Hafiz Rashid believes failed in its aim to cut government spending.

"Musk’s decimation of USAID will be felt for years to come," Rashid wrote. "The end of its many life-saving programs around the world has already killed hundreds of thousands of people, and if those programs don’t receive a new source of funding, millions of the world’s destitute will suffer even further. Musk called it a 'criminal organization' that 'needs to die.'”

The Tesla CEO's time in the administration was dubbed a "ransacking of the federal government" by Rashid, who also claimed Musk's part in the government was a "reward" for his generous contributions to the Trump campaign.

The tech billionaire would contribute $250 million to the re-election campaign. Rashid wrote, "DOGE, named as such to copy an old internet meme, was Musk’s reward for spending $250 million to get Trump elected."

"He would get to run the powerful government agency while claiming to have no official position with the government, insulating him from any and all ethics requirements."

"For the next few months, the tech oligarch would oversee ransacking of the federal government and workforce, bringing on his preferred hires, a group of twenty-somethings with no government experience, but extensive ties to Musk’s companies and fellow fascist tech CEO Peter Thiel."

Musk left the administration at the end of May, though has seemingly returned to Trump's inner circle. The Washington Post suggests Vice President JD Vance orchestrated the truce between Musk and Trump.

As reported by the outlet, the truce seems to be the doing of Vance. The article reads, "Vance already had appealed to Musk directly. This time, he urged Musk allies to push him to back off his third party plans.

"And Vance would later personally lobby lawmakers to support restoring the nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to head NASA, the agency that funds Musk’s space exploration businesses SpaceX, said the two people."

"But though Trump and Musk are once again on good terms, their truce is fragile, allies of both men say."

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.