The Dictatorship
It will be hard to dislodge Elon Musk — but not impossible

The Department of Government Efficiency has in just a few short weeks interjected itself into multiple federal agencies, risking major damage to their core functions. Its leader, billionaire Elon Musk, is using his platform as owner of X to call for a “second American revolution” and attack judicial authority to his millions of followers. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump appears to be handing over control of a large portion of the federal government to the billionaire, signing an executive order Wednesday calling on federal agencies to work with his unelected task force in culling staff rosters.
Musk sits at a nexus of power that few — if any — Americans have ever held.
Musk sits at a nexus of power that few — if any — Americans have ever held. His businesses have cultivated deep, grasping ties within the federal government — especially the national security state — over the years, resulting in contracts worth at least a staggering $18 billion. Without SpaceX’s rockets, NASA will scramble to get into orbit; without the satellites the company is helping to launch, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be less able to track extreme weather. His Starlink satellite internet service has been a crucial tool in Ukraine’s war against Russia and stands to be the recipient of even more Defense Department contracts in the future. But without the guarantee of federal revenue, Musk’s fortune would likely be more vulnerable to the investors whose confidence in him helps maintain his massive net worth (on paper at least).
That hand-in-glove relationship with Washington is important to understand why the billionaire is so dead set on tearing down the federal bureaucracy. Musk isn’t alone among the Silicon Valley billionaire class in being tied to the government and tilting right. As I write in my new book “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left,” he stands alongside the likes of Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen in having both benefited from federal funding and gone further to the right in a reactionary response to cultural liberalism and the attention of the regulatory state. Despite decades of federal subsidies for the tech industry, it has been nowhere near a two-way street in the eyes of the private-sector benefactors. Now that they’ve glutted themselves on taxpayer funding, they would argue, it would be anti-American to expect them to give any of that back or be subject to any meaningful oversight.
Now, Musk is trying to reset the way the government works to prioritize his own interests. Though his fortune depends on federal cash, his businesses have been subject to a plethora of investigations from federal agencies ranging from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Department of Justice. The future of those inquiries, including complaints from his own workers to the National Labor Relations Board, seem grim given his place at Trump’s right hand.
But Musk’s approach to his own workforce and federal laws is emblematic of how he is taking on his role at DOGE — and how he can be expected to react if pushed back on. Such overreach is bound to generate a reaction, but he’s not likely going to roll over without a fight. Musk is currently empowered within the government and outside of it; a precarious position for the rest of us from someone who takes any threat or criticism as a declaration of war.
Now, Musk is trying to reset the way the government works to prioritize his own interests.
But this weekend, everyday Americans took the first step, using Tesla charging stations and dealerships as sites to protest Musk’s illegitimate power grab. The “Tesla Takedown,” as the group behind the demonstrations calls it, held actions on Saturday at sites within the U.S. and Canada. In Washington, elected Democrats are slowly getting the message from their constituents that Musk is a problem in need of solving. Lawmakers in Congress have introduced bills to address his unelected influence and power and have been urged to do more.
Ironically, the same person who empowered Musk might also be more vulnerable to outside pressure than Musk himself. Trump is famously thin-skinned and hyperaware of his standing in the public eye. The question of just what would wind up pushing him and Musk apart has been at the forefront for months given the egos at play and the increasing unpopularity of what the billionaire is trying to do with DOGE. Add to that the potential of plummeting poll numbers as DOGE chaos hits the average American, and the possibility of turning the White House against the billionaire can’t be ignored.
Holding Musk accountable is going to be difficult so long as he has both his shareholders and Trump to shield him. Taking a stand outside of his dealerships and chargers is a good start when you consider the billionaire’s famously thin-skinned nature. It also helps to make clear to investors that his personal brand is a weight to the company, not an asset.
No matter what ultimately dislodges him, Musk remaining empowered to make policy for federal agencies cannot become normalized. Democrats need to begin planning now on how to unravel his grasp on vital national security areas, letting his contracts expire and replacing them with improved state capacity. If nothing else, Musk’s rapid accumulation of power shows that the parasitic relationship he enjoys with the federal government can’t be allowed to continue unchallenged through future administrations.
Eoin Higgins is a writer based in New England. His book, “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left,” is available now.
The Dictatorship
The two words Democrats are avoiding in praising the Israel-Hamas peace deal

Democrats are heaping praise on the peace deal struck between Israel and Hamas, which unlocked the release of all living hostages in Gaza. But there are two words most Democrats are omitting when discussing the peace agreement: “Donald” and “Trump.”
In statement after statement, Democrats on Capitol Hill lauded the end to the fighting, the liberation of hostages and the hope of a new chapter in the Middle East, applauding “all involved in succeeding to broker the ceasefire agreement” and touting the “power of diplomacy” for getting the globe to that moment.
“After two years of abduction and torture, every living hostage is finally home. Those who were taken on October 7th will outlast the terrorist organization that tore them from their families and homes and unleashed a war of untold suffering,” Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., wrote on social media. “Against all odds, the timeless call to ‘Let My People Go’ has been answered.”
Notably, however, there was no mention of Trump.

The same could be said for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Jeffries called the agreement “an extremely welcome development.”
“The world will be a better place with a safe and secure Israel living side by side in peace and prosperity with the Palestinian people able to achieve the dignity and self-determination they deserve. We must all recommit to achieve that outcome,” Jeffries said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., eventually gave Trump a shout-out Monday afternoon, after ignoring the president’s role when the deal was first announced.
In a 175-word statement, Schumer commended “the enormous advocacy of the tireless hostage families, President Trump, his administration, and all who helped make this moment happen.”
While he didn’t necessarily avoid Trump, he was careful to bookend his praise within a statement that celebrated the living hostages coming home and a call to build a lasting peace in the region.
And the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., posted on X that he was “deeply relieved to see the living hostages released from Gaza today.”
“May their freedom mark a process of healing for them and their families, and the beginning of a durable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians,” Meeks said.
There was no mention of Trump.
The divide between celebrating the deal while ignoring the man who helped broker it highlights the politically tricky terrain Democrats find themselves in. They want to laud the potentially historic peace agreement without giving credit to Trump, a figure they and their voters largely loathe and whose actions throughout the war have drawn criticism.
It’s the latest flashpoint in the long-simmering debate within the Democratic Party over Israel, which has pitted pro-Israel Democrats against progressive lawmakers who sharply criticized the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza — a discourse that has played out publicly.
Republicans, for their part, are taking note of the lopsided reaction. On Monday, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., criticized Democrats for not explicitly giving Trump “any credit,” accusing them of being fearful of the blowback from their base.
“They’re afraid, again, as I said in the press conference, of their Marxist base,” Johnson told reporters. “They’re afraid of the radical left, the growing number of radical leftists in the Democrat Party who will attack them if they say anything positive or affirmative about President Trump and his work, and it is a great shame and a great danger to the country.”
The speaker noted that he was “heartened” by the comments of some Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Trump’s rival from the 2016 election. In an appearance Friday on CBS News, Clinton said, “I really commend President Trump and his administration, as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what’s often called the day after.”
Of course, some congressional Democrats have joined Clinton in calling out the president.
Sen. Jon Ossoff — who faces a tough re-election next year in Georgia — praised the White House. “I commend the efforts of the Trump Administration and international partners to achieve this moment and will vigorously support the hard work ahead necessary to secure peace, security, and freedom for all people in the Middle East,” he wrote in a statement.

In a post on social media, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., called it an “amazing day for the families” of returned hostages. “And for @POTUS and all the negotiators who made this day possible,” he said.
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a vocal supporter of Israel, also congratulated Trump the day he announced the peace deal.
And asked during a Sunday appearance on BLN how much credit Trump deserves for the deal, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Trump “should get a lot of credit.”
“This was his deal,” Kelly added. “He worked this out.”
Of course, Trump has played into the stewing domestic political divide over the situation in the Middle East, criticizing his Democratic predecessors as recently as Monday during his speech before the Knesset.
“All of the countries in the Middle East could have — what we’re doing now — it could have happened a long time ago, but it was strangled and set back, almost irretrievably by the administrations of Barack Obama and then Joe Biden,” Trump said in his hour-plus remarks.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for BLN. He previously served as Washington correspondent for Spectrum News NY1. A graduate of George Washington University, he grew up in Pennsylvania. When he isn’t roaming the halls of Congress, you’ll find Kevin singing with a local choir.
Mychael Schnell is a congressional reporter at BLN, where she covers all happenings on Capitol Hill involving both Democrats and Republicans. She previously covered Congress at Blue Light News. She graduated from George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communication and political science. She is a native New Yorker, Billy Joel’s No. 1fan and a Rubik’s Cube aficionado.
The Dictatorship
Washington state waters down child abuse law after pressure from Trump administration


Officials in the state of Washington have agreed to water down a child abuse law after pressure from the Trump administration and local Catholic leaders.
Catholic bishops and the Trump administration had filed lawsuits seeking to overturn a bill signed by Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat and a Catholic, that required faith leaders of all denominations to report allegations of abuse they received in private religious settings — including confession. Though the Catholic Church has a documented history of enabling child sexual abuse, the sponsor of Washington’s bill said the legislation was inspired by reports of abuse within Jehovah’s Witness churches.
Catholic leaders have argued that being forced to report admissions made during a confession amounts to religious discrimination. And after a federal court temporarily blocked the law in July, Washington’s attorney general said late last week that the law will be pared back:
Clergy in Washington will remain mandatory reporters under stipulations filed today by the state Attorney General’s Office and the plaintiffs in lawsuits against the state over Senate Bill 5375. Under the stipulations, however, the state and county prosecutors have agreed — as the court ordered — not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths. The stipulation now awaits approval by the court.
Most states have so-called clergy-penitent privilege laws that effectively shield religious leaders from having to report child abuse claims they hear in confessional settings. A 2022 report by Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, detailed how this loophole has protected churches from prosecutions and civil lawsuits from victims seeking accountability. Washington had sought to join the few other states without such protections.
In Washington, the governor had denounced the lawsuit filed by Catholic bishops in his state, with Ferguson saying that he was “disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids.”
Jean Hill, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, said in a statement last week that “preventing abuse and upholding the sacred seal of confession are not mutually exclusive — we can and must do both.”
The Dictatorship
Trump administration eyes higher food prices as a result of the immigration crackdown

About a month after Election Day 2024, as Donald Trump prepared to return to the White House, the Republican appeared on “Meet the Press” and explained his victory to NBC News’ Kristen Welker.
“I won on groceries,” he saidadding: “I won an election based on that.” Looking ahead, Trump concludedin reference to food prices for consumers: “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
After returning to power, the president began boasting about his successes on the issue, assuring Americans that he had lowered the cost of groceries — despite the administration’s own data, which shows grocery costs have gone up this year, not down.
Complicating matters, the president’s own team fears that the problem will soon get worse, as a direct result of the Republican White House’s own agenda. The Washington Post reported:
The Trump administration said that its immigration crackdown is hurting farmers and risking higher food prices for Americans by cutting off agriculture’s labor supply. The Labor Department warned in an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that ‘the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’
According to the Labor Department’s assessment, which was first reported by The American Prospectthe administration needs to act “immediately” to prevent the problem from getting worse.
The Post’s report noted that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that, in the aftermath of Trump’s mass deportation agenda, the U.S. farm workforce will become “100% American.” Trump’s Labor Department doesn’t see that as realistic, since Americans lack the will and skills to replace migrant farmworkers.
“The Department concludes that qualified and eligible U.S. workers will not make themselves available in sufficient numbers,” the agency said.
In other words, the president who claimed that he won a second term based on food prices, and who vowed to bring consumer costs at grocery stores “way down,” is already lying about his recent record. But making matters even worse is the fact that his own administration expects the problem to get worse, as food production slows as a result of the White House’s campaign against immigrants, which is likely to reduce supply, pushing prices up.
At that point, Trump will have to choose between competing campaign promises: Will he let immigrants stay and help stabilize food costs, or will he deport these workers and risk the fury of consumers who’ll see prices at their local grocery store climb?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Uncategorized11 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics8 months ago
Former ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Josh Fourrier Show11 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship8 months ago
Pete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship8 months ago
Luigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics8 months ago
Blue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics11 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate
-
Politics8 months ago
Former Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid