Elon’s ever-growing grip on politics

Tech billionaire Elon Musk posted more than 100 posts on the social media platform X, denouncing a bipartisan spending bill originally proposed in hopes of avoiding a government shutdown on Dec. 19. Musk’s tweets sparked a wave of online dissent among his followers, which ultimately led to the dissolution of the bill itself.

Before this, Musk had been appointed by President-elect Donald Trump as co-captain of the new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, alongside entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. The two would be tasked with advising the Cabinet from outside the government, focusing on cutting unnecessary government spending and optimizing costs. 

It’s increasingly clear that Musk is playing a significant role in the politics of Trump’s second term. Musk’s growing political influence poses a significant threat to the political power and voice of the public. His billionaire status, government role and massive online presence create a dynamic where political influence is shaped by potential biases aligned with the interests of the one percent.

Musk is not the only billionaire with their hat in the ring either, as Ramaswamy is a billionaire in his own right. However, Musk’s influence is unique because of his rocky relationship with Trump and his controversial, enduring media presence.

Billionaires have wielded immense political power for as long as their money could talk, with political donations being something of a billionaire staple. Musk is one such billionaire, but he is uniquely also an online powerhouse with a large array of dedicated followers. Currently the world’s richest man, he has a net worth exceeding $400 billion and an X follower count of over 200 million.

Yet, when considering his promised role within DOGE, it’s impossible to avoid questions about conflicts of interest affecting his own proposed cuts to government spending. In fact, Musk has called for the deletion of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), arguing that “there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies.” 

The CFPB is in charge of illuminating economic processes for consumers by not only overseeing entities like banks and lenders but also ensuring that consumers understand their rights and responsibilities in relation to credit expenditures. The government agency also works to ensure a fair market for all while working to grant compensation to people scammed by financial institutions.

When considering the role of the CFPB, Musk’s call for its removal clearly prioritizes financial institutions over consumers. Eliminating the agency would also pave the way for consumer abuse, as its absence would leave a void in market education and consumer protections.

DOGE has goals that target other regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Considering that DOGE is an agency outside the government, both Musk and Ramaswamy are exempt from federal requirements to disclose their assets and avoid conflicts of interest. This is especially concerning when considering that their billionaire-run department has promised to target economic regulatory committees. These proposed budget cuts thereby bring into question DOGE’s disregard for protecting consumers and whether they would put the interests of the public over corporations.

The spending bill recently tanked by Musk reflects this same agenda. One of Musk’s key objections to the bill was its funding of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), which fights foreign propaganda and disinformation. The GEC has long been under fire from Republicans, who claim it exists to “censor conservatives” because of its grants for tracking domestic misinformation and assessing the credibility of U.S. publications. However, GEC leaders have argued against the claims, asserting the importance of the program’s work in fighting propaganda.

Despite this, GEC funding was among several items of the bill that Musk campaigned against during a tweet crusade rife with misinformation about the bipartisan spending bill. In a show of his online strength, the negative online frenzy for the bill was soon followed by Trump’s own denouncement of it, leading to its congressional rejection.

Even before Trump entered office, Musk has made his political grip increasingly obvious. With the ability to sway Congress with just a few tweets — and with a concerning lack of fact-checking — the billionaire’s words seem to place immense pressure on the government. 

However, Musk’s propositions for DOGE have proven that he cares little about consumers and instead prioritizes his own political profits. He has goals that aim to slash almost everything except the government’s funding of his own expenditures3, such as support for H1-B visas, which have recently come under fire for their exploitative nature. Combined with his disdain for economic regulatory departments, Musk’s bias against the consumer becomes increasingly apparent.

While Trump’s establishment of DOGE and its billionaire leadership cannot be undone, it’s crucial that the committee be treated simply as the advisory body it is moving forward. The department’s power cannot — and should not — be overstated. While not required to disclose their conflicts of interest, all propositions by DOGE should be scrutinized with their biases in mind.

Layla Asgarian Nahavandi is an Opinion Staff Writer. She can be reached at lasgaria@uci.edu.

Edited by Zahira Vasquez and Jaheem Conley.

- Advertisement -

Read More New U