SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
big tech
Trump’s Chaotic Tariffs Benefit His Best Buddy Elon (As We Predicted)
Musk’s proximity to the White House and Trump’s innermost circle has provided him with powerful new leverage to push his businesses on foreign governments.
May 23, 2025
A series of internal government messages reveal how U.S. embassies and the State Department have pushed governments to clear regulatory barriers for Elon Musk’s Starlink. In the messages obtained by The Washington Post, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directs U.S. officials to push for permit approvals for the satellite internet service. Governments facing chaotic tariff threats have gotten the message and are rolling out the red carpet for Musk in the hope of avoiding costly tariffs.
This scandal has drawn widespread attention and condemnation, with dozens of members of Congress and senators calling for investigations into Musk and the government agencies that may have pressured countries on his behalf.
While this corruption is shocking, it’s hardly surprising. Before the “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, Public Citizen issued a report documenting how the tariff process in President Donald Trump’s first term enabled a quid-pro-quo spoils system that rewarded the rich and well-connected. We warned that Musk’s powerful and ill-defined role in the U.S. government could lead other countries to decide that giving special privileges to Musk’s companies would help them earn brownie points with the Trump administration.
U.S. Government’s Sales Pitch for Starlink
Elon Musk has been pushing for Starlink expansion across the world for years, but some countries have been wary of permitting the service to enter their markets for a number of reasons. For example, experts have raised concerns about threats to “data sovereignty,” a group or individual’s right to control and maintain their own data. To the extent that communications on the Starlink network are routed through the U.S., they may be accessible to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
And it is not unreasonable for countries to consider that access to Starlink services could be weaponized and a nation’s internet access held hostage at the whim of a single man or wayward administration. Alarmingly, claims abound that the U.S threatened to withdraw Ukrainian access to Starlink if the country did not sign the U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement (though this has been denied by Musk).
But now, Musk’s proximity to the White House and Trump’s innermost circle has provided him with powerful new leverage to push his businesses on foreign governments: the threat of Trump’s chaotic tariffs. For some countries weighing the pros and cons, the chance that approval for Starlink helps stave off tariffs has changed the equation.
Trump and his cronies have made it clear since Day 1 of his 2015 presidential primary campaign that he will bend public policy to benefit himself and his wayward inner circle of Yes Men.
The Washington Post exposé highlighted several diplomatic cables from various embassies commenting on foreign governments’ decision-making on the satellite internet service.
For example, aMarch cable from the U.S. Embassy in Cambodia explains it “has observed the Cambodian government—likely due to concern over the possibility of U.S. tariffs—signal its desire to help balance our trade relationship by promoting the market entry of leading U.S. companies such as Boeing and Starlink.” Leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia advised the Ministry of Economy and Finance to take “decisive action in offering concessions to the United States… recommending that Cambodia… expeditiously approve Starlink’s market entry request.”
Cambodia is facing a 49% Trump tariff rate.
Another cable from April highlighted that Starlink was pushing for a license to operate in Djibouti. State Department staffers noted Starlink’s approval would be an opportunity to open the country’s market and boost “an American company.” Embassy officials “will continue to follow up with Starlink in identifying government officials and facilitating discussions.”
Djibouti is facing a 10% Trump tariff rate.
The Pressure Is Working—At the Expense of Public Interest Policies
Sec. Rubio “encouraged Vietnam to address trade imbalances,” in an early March 2025 phone call with the nation’s Foreign Ministry. Shortly thereafter, the Vietnamese government laid out a battery of appeasements to the Trump administration, including a waiver of their domestic partnership requirements, enabling the launch of a five-year pilot program with Starlink. An unnamed source speaking with Reuters said this can be seen as “an olive branch” to Musk and his company, a “demonstration from the Vietnamese side that they can play the transactional diplomacy game if the Trump administration wants that.”
Vietnam is facing a 46% Trump tariff rate.
A Bangladeshi representative visited the White House in mid-February to offer concessions to stave off the promised tariffs and was brought to a surprise meeting with Elon Musk. Musk wanted to discuss the ongoing negotiations between Starlink and Bangladesh’s regulatory agency—the implication being that Bangladesh would not get favorable trade terms from the U.S. if Starlink wasn’t permitted. Early April saw Bangladesh’s Telecommunication Regulatory Commission issue what was described as “the swiftest recommendation” in its history for a Starlink license. When Trump announced a punishing 37% reciprocal tariff on Bangladesh, the export-dependent country wrote a letter to Trump requesting leniency and detailing the ways in which it was already taking action to benefit U.S. businesses—including its access for Starlink.
Bangladesh is facing a 37% Trump tariff rate.
Lesotho also granted a license to Starlink in April, despite local objections to foreign-owned businesses. Local NGOs called the licensing decision “a betrayal—a shameful sellout by a government that appears increasingly willing to place foreign corporate interests above the democratic will and long-term developmental needs of the people of Lesotho.” An internal State Department memo states, “As the government of Lesotho negotiates a trade deal with the United States, it hopes that licensing Starlink demonstrates goodwill and intent to welcome U.S. businesses.” Subtle.
Lesotho is facing a 50% Trump tariff rate.
Musk has infamously complained on social media over South Africa’s post-Apartheid reparations rules, claiming that Starlink is “not allowed to operate in South Africa simply because [he’s] not Black [sic]”—despite having never even applied for a license. The Washington Postnoted that “the story about Bangladesh was making its way around political and business circles in South Africa,” and it’s assumed that approval of a Starlink license has become “a prerequisite for getting a favorable trade deal.” Legislators have introduced a controversial measure to exempt Starlink from the Black empowerment law.
South Africa is facing a 30% Trump tariff rate.
Musk has been looking to break into the Indian market for years—even launching, then retracting, services in 2022 without the necessary licenses. Around the time of the Bangladesh meeting, Musk also met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi near the White House. According to India Today, a “key agenda” item was Starlink’s pending approval in India. In May of 2025, India dropped two proposed security rules that Starlink had refused during earlier discussions.
India is facing a 26% Trump tariff rate.
In March of 2024, Starlink was prohibited in theDemocratic Republic of the Congo, citing concerns from military experts who warned it could be misused by armed insurgent groups including M23. That ban was recently lifted, and Starlink launched in May 2025. This policy reversal comes at a time of mounting frustrations from Congolese civil society over secretive dealmaking with the United States. The resurgence of rebel group M23 has pushed President Felix Tshisekedi’s government toward a controversial deal that has the private military corporation Blackwater’s Erik Prince at the center. The deal would exchange U.S. security assistance for access to DRC critical minerals, not unlike the recent U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal.
The DRC is facing an 11% Trump tariff rate
The list goes on. Mali, Somalia, Namibia, and others are also considering regulatory approval of Starlink and facing varying degrees of resistance from civil society.
Namibia is facing a 21% Trump tariff rate, with Mali and Somalia at 10%.
The Blueprint
Paving the way for Starlink in other countries is just the tip of the iceberg. Trump and his cronies have made it clear since Day 1 of his 2015 presidential primary campaign that he will bend public policy to benefit himself and his wayward inner circle of Yes Men. Anything that can limit their personal gain is on the chopping block.
The attacks on other governments’ legitimate domestic policies aren’t just predictable, they’re predicted. In detail. Not just by Trump’s erratic speeches and TruthSocial policy changes, but across nearly 400 pages, readily available to us all at ustr.gov: the 2025 National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report.
This year’s report targets a litany of public interest laws and policies adopted by countries around the world to regulate the digital ecosystem. Notably, the 2025 NTE report calls out the satellite licensing and approval processes in Brazil, South Korea, and Malaysia, and points out that a number of countries impose import restrictions on certain types of internet and telecommunications equipment. Removing these would smooth regulatory hurdles for Starlink in those countries. The NTE report is also chock-full of other privacy, AI accountability, and competition policies that Big Tech companies want to get rid of around the world.
The report was drafted in large part based on comments submitted by corporations in October 2024 under then-President Joe Biden and before the presidential election. Given the Trump administration’s brazen willingness to openly push the agenda of his billionaire buddies, we can now expect even more extreme demands from companies like Starlink. For instance, in a submission to the Trump administration ahead of the “reciprocal tariffs” announcement, SpaceX complained about governments imposing “non-tariff” barriers impeding global roll-out of Starlink, including having to pay governments for access to spectrum—a standard practice in a number of countries, including the U.S.
As Trump wields his chaotic tariff threats to extract concessions in dozens of closed-door negotiations, we should not be surprised to see even more Big Tech giveaways and lucrative favors for Musk. It is imperative that Congress demand transparency in these trade talks and hold the Trump administration accountable for such inappropriate coercion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
16 Senate Dems Join GOP to Advance Crypto Bill—A Gift to Trump's 'Reeking Corruption'
"No Democrats should be supporting Trump's self-enrichment," said one grassroots progressive group.
May 20, 2025
Despite concerns that it does not address U.S. President Donald Trump's ties to the crypto industry, 16 Democrats in the Senate voted with most Republicans on Monday to advance a bill that creates a regulatory framework for stablecoins, digital assets whose value is tied to traditional currency, such as the U.S. dollar, or a commodity like gold.
The industry-backed Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act passed a cloture vote, with support from Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the original co-sponsor of the bill, Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). The bill is now teed up for Senate debate.
Back in February, a coalition of consumer groups and watchdogs warned that the bill would accelerate the "convergence of Big Tech and Big Finance" and is "a necessary prerequisite for future giveaways to the crypto industry."
In early May, the legislation faltered after several crypto-friendly Democrats raised concerns that it did not contain strong enough provisions around anti-money laundering, national security, and other issues.
Pro-crypto Democrats have said that the version of the bill that was considered on Monday contains a number of revisions that address those concerns, including more consumer protections and some limitations on Big Tech's ability to issue stablecoins.
However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs—said on the Senate floor Monday that the bill's "basic flaws remain unaddressed," according to prepared remarks.
Warren is concerned, in particular, that the bill does not "rein in the president's crypto corruption."
"Trump and his family have already pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars from his crypto ventures and they stand to make hundreds of millions more from his stablecoin, USD1, if this bill passes," Warren said. "Passing this bill means that we can expect more anonymous buyers, big companies, and foreign governments to use the president's stablecoin as both a shadowy bank account shielded from government oversight and as a way to pay off the president personally."
USD1 is a stablecoin developed by the Trump family crypto firm, World Liberty Financial. A few weeks ago, it was announced that USD1 would be used for a $2 billion deal between an investment firm established by the government of Abu Dhabi, MGX, and the world's largest crypto exchange, Binance.
Warren on Monday also expressed concern that the bill, even with revisions, creates a relatively weak regulatory framework, and still allows Big Tech to create private currencies, among other objections.
"Democrats correctly deride Republicans for abetting Trump's endless, daily, sulfurous corruption. But given the chance to stand up to his crypto grift—perhaps the most reeking corruption in presidential history—too many Democrats instead yielded to another depravity, namely unprecedented political spending by a handful of crypto corporations and billionaires," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert on Monday, referencing election spending by the crypto industry.
In the last election cycle, crypto industry-supported super political action committees gave money to multiple senators who voted for cloture on Monday, including Slotkin and Gallego.
"No Democrats should be supporting Trump's self-enrichment," the grassroots progressive group Indivisible wrote on Tuesday on Bluesky.
Keep ReadingShow Less
140+ Groups Oppose House GOP's Sweeping Ban on State AI Regulation
"Americans deserve both meaningful federal protections and the ability of their states to lead in advancing safety, fairness, and accountability when AI systems cause harm."
May 19, 2025
Demand Progress on Monday led over 140 organizations "committed to protecting civil rights, promoting consumer protections, and fostering responsible innovation" in a letter opposing U.S. House Republicans' inclusion of legislation that would ban state and local laws regulating artificial intelligence in a megabill advanced by the Budget Committee late Sunday.
Section 43201(c)—added by U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) ahead of last Tuesday's markup session—says that "no state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act."
"Protections for civil rights and children's privacy, transparency in consumer-facing chatbots to prevent fraud, and other safeguards would be invalidated, even those that are uncontroversial."
In the new letter, the coalition highlighted how "sweeping" the GOP measure is, writing to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and members of Congress that "as AI systems increasingly shape critical aspects of Americans' lives—including hiring, housing, healthcare, policing, and financial services—states have taken important steps to protect their residents from the risks posed by unregulated or inadequately governed AI technologies."
"As we have learned during other periods of rapid technological advancement, like the industrial revolution and the creation of the automobile, protecting people from being harmed by new technologies, including by holding companies accountable when they cause harm, ultimately spurs innovation and adoption of new technologies," the coalition continued. "In other words, we will only reap the benefits of AI if people have a reason to trust it."
According to the letter:
This total immunity provision blocks enforcement of all state and local legislation governing AI systems, AI models, or automated decision systems for a full decade, despite those states moving those protections through their legislative processes, which include input from stakeholders, hearings, and multistakeholder deliberations. This moratorium would mean that even if a company deliberately designs an algorithm that causes foreseeable harm—regardless of how intentional or egregious the misconduct or how devastating the consequences—the company making that bad tech would be unaccountable to lawmakers and the public. In many cases, it would make it virtually impossible to achieve a level of transparency into the AI system necessary for state regulators to even enforce laws of general applicability, such as tort or antidiscrimination law.
"Many state laws are designed to prevent harms like algorithmic discrimination and to ensure recourse when automated systems harm individuals," the letter notes. "For example, there are many documented cases of AI having highly sexualized conversations with minors and even encouraging minors to commit harm to themselves and others; AI programs making healthcare decisions that have led to adverse and biased outcomes; and AI enabling thousands of women and girls to be victimized by nonconsensual deepfakes."
If Section 43201(c) passes the Republican-controlled Congress and is signed into law by President Donald Trump, "protections for civil rights and children's privacy, transparency in consumer-facing chatbots to prevent fraud, and other safeguards would be invalidated, even those that are uncontroversial," the letter warns. "The resulting unfettered abuses of AI or automated decision systems could run the gamut from pocketbook harms to working families like decisions on rental prices, to serious violations of ordinary Americans' civil rights, and even to large-scale threats like aiding in cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or the production of biological weapons."
The coalition also called out "Congress' inability to enact comprehensive legislation enshrining AI protections leaves millions of Americans more vulnerable to existing threats," and commended states for "filling the need for substantive policy debate over how to safely advance development of this technology."
In the absence of congressional action, former President Joe Biden also took some steps to protect people from the dangers of AI. However, as CNNpointed out Monday, "shortly after taking office this year, Trump revoked a sweeping Biden-era executive order designed to provide at least some safeguards around artificial intelligence. He also said he would rescind Biden-era restrictions on the export of critical U.S. AI chips earlier this month."
Today, Demand Progress and a coalition of artists, teachers, tech workers and more asked House leaders to reject a measure that would stop states from regulating AI. Read the full story by @claresduffy.bsky.social at @cnn.com
[image or embed]
— Demand Progress (@demandprogress.bsky.social) May 19, 2025 at 10:15 AM
The groups asserted that "no person, no matter their politics, wants to live in a world where AI makes life-or-death decisions without accountability... Section 43201(c) is not the only provision in this package that is of concern to our organizations, and there are some provisions on which we will undoubtedly disagree with each other. However, when it comes to this provision, we are united."
"Americans deserve both meaningful federal protections and the ability of their states to lead in advancing safety, fairness, and accountability when AI systems cause harm," concluded the coalition, which includes 350.org, the American Federation of Teachers, Center for Democracy & Technology, Economic Policy Institute, Free Press Action, Friends of the Earth U.S., Greenpeace USA, Groundwork Collaborative, National Nurses United, Public Citizen, Service Employees International Union, and more.
In a Monday statement announcing the letter, Demand Progress corporate power director Emily Peterson-Cassin blasted the provision as "a dangerous giveaway to Big Tech CEOs who have bet everything on a society where unfinished, unaccountable AI is prematurely forced into every aspect of our lives."
"Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries must listen to the American people and not just Big Tech campaign donations," she said. "State laws preventing AI from encouraging children to harm themselves, making uninformed decisions about who gets healthcare, and creating nonconsensual deepfakes will all be wiped away unless Congress reverses course."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular