This is an adapted excerpt from the Nov. 17 episode of “Velshi.”

In 1985, a young White House lawyer by the name of John Roberts issued a prescient warning. In a memo on the Reagan-era Grace Commission, which sought to reduce waste in government spending, Roberts cautioned against allowing private-sector CEOs to oversee the very agencies that regulate their businesses, calling it a “disaster” because of the inherent conflicts of interest. Decades later, that young lawyer now sits at the top of the Supreme Court, overseeing a nation confronted with an unprecedented consolidation of wealth and power. 

Critics argue that such steep cuts would devastate working- and middle-class Americans while leaving the wealthy untouched.

In a move critics describe as the ultimate merger of the two, last week, President-elect Donald Trump appointed tech billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to co-chair a so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Now, I know that it has the word “department” in its title but it’s not an actual government agency — only Congress has the authority to create those. Instead, it’s more of a pet project of sorts for two billionaires who seem to get a kick out of trolling our democratic institutions.

So what is the Department of Government Efficiency exactly?

Well, Trump says it will serve as an “outside advisory commission” to his administration, one that will “drive large scale structural reform.” Its billionaire co-chairs say they want to slash government regulations and spending while downsizing the federal workforce. Musk has pledged to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, though he has offered few specifics beyond that. 

For context, the total amount of discretionary spending in the federal budget is about $1.7 trillion. Discretionary spending does not include mandatory spending, which covers Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.

This means Musk’s proposed cuts would have to extend beyond discretionary spending, potentially targeting critical programs. Critics argue that such steep cuts would devastate working- and middle-class Americans while leaving the wealthy untouched.

In late October, Musk seemed to acknowledge this, stating that his proposed spending cuts could cause economic hardship for Americans, “We have to reduce spending to live within our means. And, you know, that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity.”

Easy for the world’s richest man to say.

And what’s the deadline for this major overhaul of an entire government? Trump says that all this will be completed “no later than July 4, 2026,” roughly a year and a half from now. Musk, on the other hand, promises to be done “much faster.” The commission’s position outside the formal government structure, which includes more than 400 actual departments, raises serious questions about how it will achieve its goals.

If Musk’s management of the social media platform X is any indication, the rush to restructure our government institutions should deeply worry you. Under Musk’s leadership, X has lost 80% of its value, according to an October estimate from the firm Fidelity.

Beyond that, there are troubling questions about allowing billionaires unbridled access to our government institutions. Musk is the head of companies such as SpaceX and Starlink, which hold billions in federal contracts. SpaceX alone has received more than $15 billion in government contracts, including classified Pentagon deals. 

Musk’s close ties to Trump are clearly well-documented, he’s been described by insiders as wanting to be seen as Trump’s “co-president.” His $200 million super PAC played a key role in helping Trump get elected, while his social media platform X significantly amplified the president-elect’s political messaging.

But with the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk’s influence is being formalized — rewarded even — with a pseudo-government title. Consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen have labeled the appointment “the ultimate corporate corruption.” 

In a report published last month, the same group found, “At least three of Musk’s businesses are currently under scrutiny for alleged misconduct by at least nine federal agencies.” That means Musk will now oversee the overhaul of the very same agencies tasked with investigating him. 

Recommended

Latest

The GOP’s decadeslong project to dismantle the Voting Rights Act is nearly realized

Ali Velshi, Allison Detzel, Brianna Williams

Deadline: Legal Blog

John Roberts helps DOGE avoid turning over records for now in CREW litigation

Jordan Rubin

There are troubling questions about allowing billionaires unbridled access to our government institutions.

This is not the first time Trump has appointed billionaires to his administration. His first Cabinet included billionaires such as Wilbur Ross, Rex Tillerson and Betsy DeVos, all of whom faced criticism for prioritizing private interests over the public good.

But with Musk, critics say there’s a major difference. Unlike Tillerson, who divested from ExxonMobil once he became secretary of state, Musk appears to have no intention of stepping back from his businesses. There don’t appear to be any safeguards at all against potential conflicts of interest this time around. Instead, Musk will retain control over Tesla and SpaceX, all while overseeing policies that could benefit his companies.

So how did we get to this point? Progressive radio host Thom Hartmann says that this is the culmination of decades of legal decisions that have normalized the role of money in politics. 

Starting with the Supreme Court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which equated spending money with free speech, a decision that opened the floodgates for big money to dominate elections. Two years later, the same court in Boston v. Bellotti expanded those rights to corporations. Dissenting justices warned that unregulated corporate power would erode the foundations of our democracy. Justice Byron White said that corporate power would dominate “not only our economy but the very heart of our democracy.” 

Nearly five decades after those decisions opened the door to buying influence, Musk’s appointment risks entrenching corporate interests within the very structures of our federal government.

The 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC only exacerbated these vulnerabilities, allowing corporations to pour unlimited funds into political campaigns, solidifying their grip on power. That opinion was written by none other than the once bright-eyed and bushy-tailed John Roberts, prompting critics to label it the “Roberts Court’s War on Democracy.”

The top 1% are no longer just influencing policy from behind the scenes; they are seizing control of the levers of power, a logical and perhaps inevitable consequence of allowing money to dominate our politics.

This dramatic shift mirrors the dynamics of autocracies, where billionaires often blur the line between public office and private interests. A 2023 study found that billionaires are far more likely to hold office in autocracies than in democracies, a trend that some fear could erode America’s democratic foundations.

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson foresaw these dangers and issued a stark warning about the risks of concentrated wealth:

Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government.

As Trump’s oligarchy begins to take shape, Jefferson speaks to us from his grave, a sobering warning of what happens when we entrust the keys to democracy to those who profit from its dismantling.

Allison Detzel contributed.