Connect with us

News

Musk and Ramaswamy Heading New ‘DOGE’ Prompts Legal and Ethical Concerns: Experts

Published

on

President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday evening that he will create the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and named billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk and biotech and financial entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy as its co-directors. Experts are raising legal and ethical concerns across various issues.

One ethics expert says both Musk and Ramaswamy will have to divest from their extensive financial assets to avoid a federal conflict of interest law.

Professor of Law Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer under Republican President George W. Bush, issued a warning just hours after Trump’s announcement.

“This is a federal office subject to the financial conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 208. They will both have to divest conflicting financial interests or risk violating a criminal statute,” Painter wrote.

READ MORE: Trump Victory Was ‘Slim’ and Not the ‘Historic Mandate’ Republicans Claim, Analysis Shows

He offered some examples: “Elon Musk must divest X or recuse from government matters affecting social media platforms; he must divest Tesla or recuse from government matters affecting the auto industry, electric batteries, etc.”

Attorney Tristan Snell, the former New York prosecutor who helped secure a $25 million settlement against Trump University, agreed:

“Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will have to divest their business holdings if they want to join the Trump administration, to avoid violating conflict-of-interest laws. So if Elon takes a job, could he be forced to sell his stock in Tesla? Or could he be forced to sell Twitter?”

Professor Painter also pointed to a CNN report highlighting potential conflicts.

“The announcement of Ramaswamy and particularly Musk, who leads companies with existing, lucrative government contracts, raises immediate questions about potential conflicts of interest,” CNN reported. “It is not immediately clear how the department – which Trump said would ‘provide advice and guidance from outside of Government’ – would operate, and whether a Congress even fully controlled by Republicans would have the appetite to approve such a massive overhaul of government spending and operations.”

CNN also noted that last year Ramaswamy, “who had promised on the campaign trail to eliminate the FBI, the Department of Education and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which would lay off thousands of federal workers in the process – released a white paper outlining a legal framework he said would allow the president to eliminate federal agencies of his choice.”

The Daily Beast suggested there could be ways to circumvent the requirements of federal law.

“Trump could … appoint the duo under the Federal Advisory Committees Act, which allows the government to set up groups to provide ‘expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the Federal Government.'”

“This would potentially allow Musk and Ramaswamy to remain advisers instead of federal employees—meaning they would not necessarily be legally required to disclose conflicts of interest like employees of agencies such as the Department of Justice or the Defense Department.”

Other critics are raising additional concerns.

READ MORE: ‘No Excuse’: Dems Have Just Weeks to Get Dozens of Biden’s Judicial Nominees Confirmed

Some have suggested that in general, only Congress, not the President, can create new federal agencies.

The Daily Beast reports, “government agencies can only be created by an act of Congress.”

It appears Trump’s new agency, based on his announcement, may operate out of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It is unclear how funding would work.

And while DOGE would suggest where to cut or eliminate funding, generally only Congress can determine how and how much federal funds are spent. It is generally unlawful for the President to decide to not spend funds Congress allocates.

Others are mocking the choice of the new agency’s name.

Attorney and creator of the SHERO political and legal newsletter, Amee Vanderpool, points out that DOGE is “an acronym that is frat boy shout out to cryptocurrency,” and notes that “an official agency cannot be created without Congress.”

NOTUS political investigations reporter Jose Pagliery adds, “Wait, the Elon/Vivek department will be called DOGE? They’re memefying the government. The actual government.”

Those concerns are accurate, as CNBC explains:

Dogecoin “shot higher on Tuesday night, extending its postelection surge after President-elect Donald Trump formally announced the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, which he referred to as ‘DOGE’ in his statement.

The Daily Beast added that “DOGE” is “a reference to a decade-old meme that was later turned into a cryptocurrency beloved by Musk.”

Musk himself appears to have come up with the idea of a Department of Government Efficiency, in August:

And reinforced it again in September:

He appears to already be thinking about marketing ideas:

Musk also highlighted what he says he sees as “a leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining.” He also told a social media user that the “entertainment value will be epic.”

Professor of Law, political commentator, and former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman offered this summation: “Oh man, talk about strange bedfellows.”

See the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘What Illegal Corruption Looks Like’: Trump Blasted for ‘Already Breaking the Law’

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation

Published

on

Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.

Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”

“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”

In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”

He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”

“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”

“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”

“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”

The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.

“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”

Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”

Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.

Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs

Published

on

President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.

“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”

The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”

Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”

TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”

Critics blasted Trump.

“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.

One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”

Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”

The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.

According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.

Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”

“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”

Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.

Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.

The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.

“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.

The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.

“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.