Former Romney adviser bankrolled by left-wing groups ripped for leading anti-DOGE charge: 'Paid puppet'
A well-known economist who was believed to be trying to influence the Trump administration's economic policies in the lead-up to the inauguration is facing criticism for his opposition to President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts in line with the resistance from some of his group's top donors.
"Elon Musk is not actually a popular person, and the frame of politics that the DOGE crew is pushing is not an effective brand of politics," American Compass founder and chief economist Oren Cass told Politico in February.
Also in February, Cass wrote a piece for UnHerd, titled "Why DOGE will fail: There isn't an easy button for everything," where he argued that "DOGE is haphazardly cutting expenditures without even knowing what they are."
Cass has a long history of criticizing Musk, including last year when he took shots at Musk's personal character and said in a post on X that Musk's values are not aligned with the interests of the American people after the tech billionaire opened a factory in China.
In March 2024, Cass posted that Musk has "already committed to upholding core socialist values" to placate the Chinese Communist Party for financial gain.
Fox News Digital previously reported on Cass positioning himself as an ally of the Trump administration and that a significant chunk of American Compass' funding comes from a handful of foundations tied to liberal causes, including almost $2 million from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network, which is led by a founder described as "notable for funding liberal-in-conservative clothing groups that target former president Donald Trump and his supporters."
The Hewlett Foundation gave nearly $2 million, 44.1% of total funding, to American Compass from 2020-2023, including a startup grant, while Pierre Omidyar, of the Omidyar Network, gave $550,000, 11.3% of total funding, from 2020-2023.
Both the Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network have resisted the Trump administration.
Hewlett Foundation Director Of Economic And Society Initiative Jennifer Harris has been critical of Musk and DOGE's efforts on X, including riposting a criticism doubting that DOGE cuts would result in actual savings and sharing a post that said, "The Air Crashes Of The Past Two Days Show Us The Obvious: The Man In Charge Of @DOGE Runs Companies That No One Would Miss If They Disappeared Tomorrow. If Good Government Disappears, People Die."
The Atlantic posted a piece in February with the headline, "DOGE Is Failing on Its Own Terms." The bottom of that article stated, "Support for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation."
The Omidyar Network has been active behind the scenes pushing resistance against Musk and the Trump administration, the Washington Examiner reported in November, and has opposed Musk in various forms and previously backed corporate boycotts against Musk, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Along with his criticism of DOGE, Cass has been a vocal opponent of another one of the Trump administration's top priorities, tax cuts.
Despite Cass offering some praise of Trump, he has been a longtime critic of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, calling them an "expensive failure" and saying Trumpism is facing an "inevitable expiration" and adding in September 2020 that Trump is "building no intellectual foundation, no institutional infrastructure and no policy agenda."
"Oren Cass is a former Romney staffer upset that Trump is cutting taxes and cutting government spending, DOGE shouldn't care about the political assessment of a man who just lost a local school board election," Mike Palicz, director of Americans for Tax Reform, told Fox News Digital.
David McIntosh, Club for Growth president, told Fox News Digital in a statement, "So American Compass opposes the Trump tax cuts, and now Elon Musk's work to cut federal government waste, it's almost like he's just a paid-puppet of the left – oh wait, he is."
After Trump's 2024 election victory, Cass continued to signal opposition to Trump's tax policy.
"Well, I think we have today a politics where both candidates go around talking about how they`re just going to cut everybody`s taxes," Cass told PBS on Nov. 10. "And, of course, everybody likes a tax cut. But I don`t think those are the things that are going to turn our economy in a much better direction."
During another interview earlier this year, Cass said one of the things he thought was "most encouraging" was that there are no "mini Trumps" and that he is "extremely encouraged" by the post-Trump-era Republican leaders he is seeing.
"American Compass advocates for limited government and a commitment to paying for the government that we have rather than leaving the bill to our children," Cass told Fox News Digital in November. "Anti-tax zealots can lobby for larger deficits if they want, but conservatives are under no obligation to follow them into the fiscal ditch."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, a Hewlett Foundation spokesperson said, "The Hewlett Foundation funds grantees across the ideological spectrum, including American Compass—specifically for its efforts to prioritize American prosperity and American workers."
Fox News Digital reached out to the Omidyar Network and American Compass for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Supreme Court limits outside access to DOGE records
The Supreme Court has reined in a lower-court order that allowed a watchdog group wide-ranging access to records of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. The high court's majority said a judge's directive allowing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to examine DOGE's recommendations for cost savings at executive branch agencies was 'not appropriately tailored.' In a two-page order Friday, the Supreme Court said such access was not a proper way to resolve an ongoing dispute about whether DOGE is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act or operates as a presidential advisory body that does not have to share its records with the public. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court's majority wrote. All three of the court's liberal justices indicated they disagreed with the decision, but none provided an explanation of her views.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chris Hayes: Trump's 'secret police': Masked agents' sweeping immigration raids raise concern
This is an adapted excerpt from the June 5 episode of 'All In with Chris Hayes.' The term 'secret police' invokes a kind of haunting specter. When we see representations of it in movies or history, we immediately identify it with a certain kind of regime: One that tramples people's liberty with no accountability. We associate it with authoritarian governments and dictatorships like the former Soviet Union, where people, usually armed, could wield the authority of the state but were, themselves, totally unaccountable in the same way. Whatever issues there are with American policing — and there are many — at least our police officers have names on their uniforms and badge numbers. But now, in the era of immigration under Donald Trump, one cannot help but notice that in clip after clip, interaction after interaction, the people enforcing the president's policies have all the qualities that one would associate with the concept of 'secret police.' In videos, these individuals are usually masked and either wearing plain clothes or irregular uniforms. They won't give their names or say what agency they're with. Watching it feels wrong, weird, alien and menacing. It does not feel like these law enforcement officials are subject to the authority of a democratic government. It's so striking, in scene after scene, to see regular people asking masked agents, 'Who are you?' and 'What are you doing?' and not receiving an answer. That's what we saw play out in one of the first videos of this kind to be made public: The arrest of Columbia student and lawful resident Mahmoud Khalil. In that video, you can see plainclothes officers apprehending Khalil in the lobby of his building. The officers pointedly refused to identify themselves or what agency they were with. 'We don't give our name,' one man said, after handcuffing and detaining a legal resident of the United States. Not long after that, we got video of the arrest of Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was snatched off the street by masked agents and led away in handcuffs. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, there was the chilling scene from last month in which masked agents broke a car window and forcibly removed a man they say was in the country illegally. Just last weekend, in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, masked agents detained an apparently undocumented gardener at his place of work. In San Diego that same weekend, residents tried to hold back what appeared to be militarized agents who were reportedly executing an immigration raid on local businesses. We've also got allegations of all kinds of lies, manipulation and subterfuge. Eyewitnesses in Tucson, Arizona, allege agents posed as city utility workers as part of an arrest attempt. There have been reports of agents performing wellness checks on children, which critics say is a trap for immigration enforcement. All this feels like something distinct from the normal forms of policing and law enforcement that we're used to. As the writer M. Gessen, who was born in the then-Soviet Union, put it in a column for The New York Times: 'The United States has become a secret-police state. Trust me, I've seen it before.' 'The citizens of such a state live with a feeling of being constantly watched. They live with a sense of random danger,' Gessen wrote. 'Anyone — a passer-by, the man behind you in line at the deli, the woman who lives down the hall, your building's super, your own student, your child's teacher — can be a plainclothes agent or a self-appointed enforcer.' This administration is treating people as if they have no rights, as if they can be rounded up at whim without any due process. That is the legal theory of the Trump administration. It believes that immigrants in this country don't have rights, even though that's very clearly not true. The Constitution is clear on this, and precedent is clear on this: Immigrants have due process rights. But the Trump administration seems to believe the state can do whatever it wants to people. According to Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, the agents in these videos are wearing masks for their own safety. 'They wear a mask because they're trying to protect themselves and their families,' Homan said on Fox News. 'Agents are getting doxed every day, their pictures and phone numbers being put on telephone poles. These leftists are following and filming when they go home from work at night.' In a statement to NBC News about these recent immigration crackdowns, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said, 'Under Secretary Noem, we are delivering on President Trump's and the American people's mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and make America safe.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic congressman steps up his work to pull Musk toward his party
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., talked with one of Elon Musk's 'senior confidants' on Thursday about whether the ex-DOGE leader, now feuding with Donald Trump, might want to help the Democratic Party in the midterms. 'Having Elon speak out against the irrational tariff policy, against the deficit exploding Trump bill, and the anti-science and anti-immigrant agenda can help check Trump's unconstitutional administration,' Khanna told Semafor on Friday. 'I look forward to Elon turning his fire against MAGA Republicans instead of Democrats in 2026.' Khanna, who has known Musk for more than a decade, has long argued that Democrats unwisely pushed him away from their party. Now the world's wealthiest man, Musk benefited from the Obama administration's clean energy investments, defending them against Republican attacks in the 2012 election. He supported Democratic nominees for president until 2024, when he endorsed Trump for president — and spent more to help elect him than he had for any Democrat. Since Musk began attacking the Trump-backed GOP tax bill as an 'abomination' this week, Democrats in Congress have amplified his criticism and even adopted some of his language. But few besides Khanna have gone as far as talking about bringing Musk back into the Democratic tent; most Democrats are furious at Musk's DOGE work to dismantle parts of the federal government and are confident that he is a political liability for Trump. 'How great is it that that dipshit Elon Musk is out?' Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota said at last Friday's Democratic fish fry in South Carolina, after Musk left the administration. 'The decisions he was making were literally killing people, so he could dance around and act like he was doing something.' Musk was a 'historic villain' whose unpopularity had helped Wisconsin Democrats win the state's April 1 supreme court race by 10 points, said state Democratic Party chairman Ben Wikler. At their 'Fighting Oligarchy' rallies, the largest political events since Trump was sworn in, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., torched Musk as the embodiment of what Democrats and fair-minded Americans should be against. Some Democrats believe that Musk could have stayed in their coalition, had they paid him a little more respect — specifically, had Joe Biden invited Musk to the White House electric vehicle summit early in his presidency. Khanna is in that camp. Others counter that the party's overall shift leftward after 2016 alienated Musk, who was never coming back. He clashed with Elizabeth Warren ('Senator Karen') over the idea of a wealth tax, and with progressives over the 'woke mind virus' that he blamed for the gender transition of his third child. That's the camp where most Democrats are, although some — like Walz — see this as a political opportunity. Still, the idea of an irate multibillionaire making problems for Republicans is enticing to plenty of Democrats, who have not been above meddling in GOP primaries to help weaker candidates win nominations. What if Musk made Republicans burn money to defend their incumbents, as he slammed them with TV ads? That's all theoretical, as Musk said last month that he would do 'a lot less' political spending now that he'd achieved his goal of electing Trump. If Musk is sincere about the political views he posts about on X, he is completely at odds with the Democratic Party, and the best they could hope for is him making trouble for Republicans out of spite. In Politico, Holly Otterbein and Lisa Kashinsky about the Democrats who hoped that Musk would have a 'villain-to-hero' arc, and help them beat Trump. But Khanna was the only voice in the party who fully believed it could happen.
