Democrats wooing Musk after the Trump breakup is US plutocracy at its best
It's official: United States President Donald Trump and the world's richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up.
At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies' lucrative contracts with the government.
Anyway, US 'democracy' has never met a conflict of interest it didn't like.
Musk's service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the 'colossal change' he had achieved 'in the old ways of doing business in Washington'. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity.
But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a 'disgusting abomination'.
There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk 'so depressed and so heartbroken' after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis:
' It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.'
Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump's 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president's campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he'll face 'very serious consequences' if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future.
But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet's richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you're just in the business of buying power.
California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump's big beautiful bill.
As per Khanna's view, 'we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.' He went on to list a few of these alleged values: 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.'
Never mind that Musk's main 'value' is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk's entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the 'values' that Democrats purport to espouse.
Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk's Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to 'go back to Africa' among other abuses suffered at his workplace.
Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a 'value' that anyone aspires to.
To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna's advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: 'I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.'
Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could 'bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son' by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there's anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place.
Newsweek's write-up of Scaramucci's comments observed that 'It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world's richest man once more.' It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money.
And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty.
Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk's arms. But either way, the country's plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a 'disgusting abomination'.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Los Angeles unrest: Is Trump allowed to deploy National Guard troops?
United States President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles County to quell protests against coordinated immigration raids, bypassing the authority of the governor of California. The extraordinary development came on Saturday, the second day of protests, amid clashes between law enforcement officers and demonstrators in the city. The Los Angeles Police Department said Saturday's demonstrations were peaceful and that 'the day concluded without incident'. But in the two cities south of Los Angeles, Compton and Paramount, street battles broke out between protesters and police who used tear gas and flashbangs to disperse the crowds. Local authorities did not request federal assistance. On the contrary, California Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump's decision to call in National Guard troops 'purposefully inflammatory'. He accused the Trump administration of ordering the deployment 'not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle'. It all started on Friday, when law enforcement officials in full riot gear descended on Los Angeles, rounding up day labourers at a building supply shop. The raids, part of a military-style operation, signalled a step up in the Trump administration's use of force in its crackdown against undocumented immigrants. The arrests were carried out without judicial warrants, according to multiple legal observers and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Department of Homeland Security said more than 100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in two days of raids across southern California. After word spread through southern Los Angeles of immigration agents arresting people, residents came out to show their outrage, and a police crackdown followed. It is made up of part-time soldiers who can be used at the state and federal levels. Under the authority of state governors, National Guard troops can be deployed to respond to emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. It can also be used to tackle social unrest when local police are overwhelmed. During times of war or national emergencies, the federal government can order a deployment for military service – that is, when the National Guard is federalised and serves under the control of the president. The president can federalise, or take control of, the National Guard in very specific cases. The main legal mechanism that a president can use to send military forces is the Insurrection Act to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and civil disorder within the country. If certain conditions are met, the president can send in the National Guard, bypassing the authority of the governor, though that is rare and politically sensitive. Following the breakout of protests in Los Angeles, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, but rather a specific provision of the US Code on Armed Services. It says National Guard troops can be placed under federal command when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority' of the US. But the law also says 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors' of the states, making it not clear whether Trump had the legal authority to bypass Newsom. Trump's directive ordering the deployment of troops said 'protests or acts of violence' directly inhibiting the execution of the laws would 'constitute a form of rebellion' against the government. According to Robert Patillo, a civil and human rights lawyer, Trump's order will likely face legal challenges. 'Normally, federal troops are going to be used inside states at the invitation of the governor of that state,' he told Al Jazeera, citing the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, which were put down by federal troops invited by Pete Wilson, then-governor of California. 'But if the governor, such as Gavin Newsom, has not asked for federal troops to come in, and these troops are coming in against his will, then there will be challenges … and this will have to go to the Supreme Court in order to determine who has a legal right to deploy those troops,' Patillo said. In 2020, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to the protests that followed the killing by a Minneapolis police officer of George Floyd. Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper pushed back, saying active-duty troops in a law enforcement role should be used 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations'. Finally, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act and asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, DC. Those who refused to send them were allowed to do so. But this time around, Trump has already signalled his unwillingness to hold back on calling in troops. When on the campaign trail in 2023, Trump told supporters in Iowa that he would not be waiting for a governor to be asked to send in troops as during his first term. 'The next time, I'm not waiting,' he said.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Fact-checking claims Trump's pardons wiped out $1bn in debt owed to US
Liz Oyer, a lawyer with the United States Department of Justice handling pardons for a long time, was fired by the Trump administration in March. Since then, Oyer has publicly criticised the administration, including its approach to pardons. In an April 30 video on TikTok, Oyer took issue with many of Trump's pardons, not only because they short-circuited the justice system but also because of their financial impact. 'President Trump has granted pardons that have wiped out over $1bn in debts owed by wealthy Americans who have committed fraud and broken the law,' claims Oyer, who said she was fired because she opposed a pardon to restore gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, a Trump supporter who was convicted on misdemeanour domestic violence charges in 2011. US Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, shared her post on May 31 on Instagram, saying Trump is 'selling pardons to criminals who dump money on him and ingratiate themselves to his ego. They not only get out of jail, but they get out of the money they owe to make restitution for their crimes. This is wrong.' Oyer's Substack includes a running list of Trump's pardons, along with a dollar figure for each that she says the pardon erased. The dollar figures on her list include fines – a financial penalty for being convicted of a crime – and restitution, which is designed to compensate victims for their losses. As of June 5, Oyer's pardon tracker listed 24 people with federal convictions whom Trump pardoned, along with the dollar amounts to be forgiven. On the surface, the maths holds: collectively, the 24 pardoned people and companies Oyer listed were on the hook for $1.34bn. 'A full pardon would wipe out any payments that were required as part of the criminal sentence', as long as they have not already been paid, said Brian Kalt, a Michigan State University law professor. But legal experts offered some caveats about this calculation. Some of the dollar amounts on Oyer's list were not finalised, which adds some speculation to her total. Oyer did not respond to inquiries for this article. After four and a half months in office, Trump has surpassed all but three post-World War II presidents for the number of clemency actions, which include pardons and commutations. His total is dominated by the roughly 1,500 pardons he granted to people who faced legal consequences from their participation in the events of January 6, 2021, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol. The vast majority of clemency actions by Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, were commutations, meaning they did not affect fines or restitution. (Biden commuted sentences for 37 people on death row and about 2,500 others convicted of nonviolent drug crimes.) Biden pardoned 80 people over four years; Trump has pardoned 58 people in four and a half months, excluding the January 6, 2021-related pardons. The four pardon recipients on Oyer's list with the highest debt would collectively exceed $1bn by themselves. They are: However, it is unclear whether these four would add up to $1bn plus in forgone payments to the federal government, because not every amount listed had been formally approved by a judge. 'Almost always, a pardon has come after sentencing, so we know the amount of the fine or restitution with certainty,' said Mark Osler, a University of St Thomas law professor. But at least in Milton's case, the pardon came before the restitution portion of his sentencing was completed. Milton is the most important pardon recipient for judging the accuracy of Oyer's statement, because it is the largest, accounting for about two-thirds of the $1bn figure. He was sentenced in December 2023, but legal skirmishing over his restitution package was delayed. In March 2025, federal prosecutors requested that the judge approve about $676m in restitution – $660.8m to shareholders in his company and $15m to one victim. That request was pending at the time of Milton's pardon. It is impossible to know whether the judge would have ultimately accepted that amount. Defendants can contest the prosecution's restitution request, and they often do, said Frank O Bowman III, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor. However, 'a judge will usually accept' what the government suggests, Osler said. For the second-, third- and fourth-ranking dollar amounts on Oyer's list, each was finalised in court. For these, though, it is unclear whether the pardon recipients had already begun to pay any of their restitution. If they had, that could reduce the dollar amounts on Oyer's list. (Our reporting did not turn up a central, publicly accessible repository showing who had paid what by the time of their pardon.) Restitution owed by January 6, 2021, pardon recipients, which is not included in Oyer's figure, could also push the total higher. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee said in a March 2025 letter that people receiving pardons related to January 6, 2021, owed nearly $3m in restitution before being pardoned. Other high-profile names on Oyer's list with smaller dollar amounts include: Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, who was interviewed by congressional Republicans during an investigation of Joe Biden, Hunter's father; Carlos Watson, the founder of Ozy Media Inc, who was convicted on several fraud counts; reality TV stars Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley, who were also convicted on fraud counts; and former politicians Michael Grimm, John Rowland, Michelle Fiore and Alexander Sittenfeld. Oyer told The Washington Post that when deciding clemency, past presidents have hewed closer to the recommendations of her former Justice Department office, which has guidelines stating that potential pardon recipients should have already completed their sentence, including paying any restitution. 'It's unprecedented for a president to grant pardons that have the effect of wiping out so much debt owed by people who have committed frauds,' Oyer told the Post. 'They do not meet Justice Department standards for recommending a pardon.' Legal experts told PolitiFact that courts have not ruled on what happens to fines or restitution payments after a pardon if they had not already been paid. A 1995 Justice Department memo said that although payments already made and received would not be subject to being clawed back, the obligations not yet paid at the time of the pardon would be forgiven. 'This question, to our knowledge, has not been decided by any court, but we conclude, based upon existing precedent, that a pardon does reach such restitution where the victim has not yet received the restitution award, provided the pardon does not contain an express limitation to the contrary,' the memo said. Margaret Love, who held Oyer's former post at the Justice Department from 1990 to 1997, said, 'If money is paid to the government, you can't get the money back except through a congressional appropriation.' For restitution intended to compensate a person — such as the victim of a fraudulent scheme — it appears that the victims are out of luck once a pardon is issued if they have not received that money already, legal experts said. It is unclear whether the victims would be obliged to repay the restitution they had already received back to the pardoned convict who defrauded them. 'I don't know if it has ever come up,' Osler said. Oyer said, 'President Trump has granted pardons that have wiped out over $1bn in debts owed by wealthy Americans who have committed fraud and broken the law.' In 24 Trump pardons Oyer cited, the four biggest dollar amounts top $1bn. However, the single biggest – about $676m – relates to an amount sought by prosecutors that had not been formally approved by a judge before the pardon was issued, making the dollar figure speculative. It accounts for about two-thirds of the $1bn figure. The statement is accurate but requires additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Democrats wooing Musk after the Trump breakup is US plutocracy at its best
It's official: United States President Donald Trump and the world's richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up. At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies' lucrative contracts with the government. Anyway, US 'democracy' has never met a conflict of interest it didn't like. Musk's service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the 'colossal change' he had achieved 'in the old ways of doing business in Washington'. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity. But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a 'disgusting abomination'. There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk 'so depressed and so heartbroken' after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis: ' It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.' Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump's 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president's campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he'll face 'very serious consequences' if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future. But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet's richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you're just in the business of buying power. California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump's big beautiful bill. As per Khanna's view, 'we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.' He went on to list a few of these alleged values: 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.' Never mind that Musk's main 'value' is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk's entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the 'values' that Democrats purport to espouse. Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk's Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to 'go back to Africa' among other abuses suffered at his workplace. Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a 'value' that anyone aspires to. To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna's advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: 'I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.' Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could 'bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son' by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there's anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place. Newsweek's write-up of Scaramucci's comments observed that 'It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world's richest man once more.' It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money. And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty. Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk's arms. But either way, the country's plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a 'disgusting abomination'. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
