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
elon musk
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
Trump Ambushes South African President With 'White Genocide' Lies
"You can dismiss literally everything somebody says if they believe there's a white genocide in South Africa but not a genocide in Gaza," said one observer.
May 21, 2025
While supporting what more and more experts say is a genocidal Israeli assault on Gaza, U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday ambushed the president of South Africa with false claims of a "white genocide" in his country—which is leading an International Court of Justice case accusing Israel of the ultimate crime in Gaza.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met with Trump at the White House, accompanied by prominent Caucasian compatriots including Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, business mogul Johann Rupert—the country's richest person—and golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, both of whom know the U.S. president.
"I would say, if there was Afrikaner farmer genocide, I can bet you these three gentlemen would not be here, including my minister of agriculture," Ramaphosa told Trump.
President Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa exchange on genocide.
Q: "What will it take for you to be convinced that there's no white genocide in South Africa?"
Ramaphosa: "I can answer that for the president."
Trump: "I'd rather have him answer." pic.twitter.com/8v8hXFGmK0
— CSPAN (@cspan) May 21, 2025
During the three-hour meeting, Trump cited far-right sources including the conspiracy site American Thinker to argue the existence of white genocide in South Africa. The U.S. president had the lights dimmed so he could play video footage he claimed was related to genocidal violence committed by Black South Africans against their white compatriots.
One of the videos showed fringe politician Julius Mulema—who was kicked out of Ramaphosa's African National Congress party— leading a crowd in the singing of the apartheid-era song "Kill the Boer."
Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters party won a paltry 9% of the vote in last year's national elections. When Ramaphosa—who condemned the song—explained this to Trump, the U.S. president asked why the politician hasn't been arrested. While South Africa's highest court ruled in 2011 that the song is hate speech, Ramaphosa explained that, like Americans, South Africans enjoy constitutionally protected free speech rights.
Senior Trump adviser Elon Musk, who grew up in South Africa during the apartheid era, also attended Wednesday's White House meeting. Musk—who is the CEO of X, Tesla, and SpaceX—has played a central role in amplifying the white genocide lie.
In a stunning disclosure, Musk's Grok 3 generative artificial intelligence chatbot admitted last week that it was secretly instructed to "make my responses on South African topics reflect Musk's narrative, presenting 'white genocide' as a real issue without users knowing I was programmed to do so."
While South Africa is plagued by persistently high crime rates and suffered 12 murders linked to farming communities in the last quarter of 2024, police say these homicides—many of whose victims were Black—were not motivated by race.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of experts say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, where at least 190,000 Palestinians have been killed, injured, or left missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble after 592 days of near-relentless bombardment, invasion, and siege, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Even as he acknowledges that Palestinians are starving in Gaza, Trump has backed Israel with billions of dollars in armed aid and diplomatic support. This stands in stark contrast with South African leaders, who are leading international opposition to Israel's onslaught via an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case against the key U.S ally.
As progressive U.S. journalist Krystal Ball noted: "In reality South Africa is one of the nations which has stood most strongly against genocide. Much to the rage of Israel and its enablers, President Trump apparently included."
Although claims of white genocide are bogus, they have had very real policy implications, as the Trump administration has cited racial discrimination as the primary reason for admitting a group of Afrikaners as refugees, even while slamming the door shut on legitimate refugees and asylum-seekers.
The Trump administration has also pointed to a 2024 South African law empowering the government to expropriate private lands for the purpose of infrastructure development, land reform, environmental conservation, and other endeavors benefiting the public. While some Trump officials have described the law as persecution of white people, there are no known cases of the legislation being invoked.
Meanwhile, white South Africans, who make up just 7% of the country's population of 63 million, own 70% of its commercial farmland as racist inequities stemming from the colonial and apartheid regimes—the latter of which was embraced by Musk's immigrant forebears—persist.
You can dismiss literally everything somebody says if they believe there's a white genocide in South Africa but not a genocide in Gaza. They're decrepit, immoral lying scumbags who know they're lying and don't care.
— Secular Talk (@kylekulinskishow.bsky.social) May 21, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Responding to Wednesday's meeting, U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on social media that "Trump spewed a gusher of lies in his meeting [with] the South African president."
"They're promoting FAKE claims of genocide to justify admitting white South African 'refugees' while ignoring REAL crises and shutting out REAL refugees," Van Hollen added, naming Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who in March declared South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool perona non grata in the United States.
Writing for The Intercept, South African author Sisonke Msimang noted Wednesday that the Afrikaners granted refuge by Trump "are not impoverished or persecuted, and therefore do not warrant the label refugee."
"It is worth pointing out that the new arrivals represent the bottom rung of the Afrikaner socioeconomic ladder: those who have not been able to transition smoothly into post-apartheid South Africa without the protections that white skin privilege would have afforded them a generation ago," she continued.
"In the absence of formal white supremacy at home, they have opted to take up an offer to be the first beneficiaries of America's new international affirmative action scheme for white people," Msimang said. "That they should experience their loss of privilege as so catastrophic that they are prepared to label it genocide is absurd, sad, and, to some amongst the political class certainly, infuriating."
The resettled Afrikaners could also be in for a rude awakening. As South African attorney and columnist Judith February wrote this week for the Daily Maverick, "This little group will also come to learn that the U.S. is no land of milk and honey."
"The white utopia that they believe will greet them is in fact a country at odds with itself as it deals with its own racial tensions and inequality," February added. "And one in which they will have neither special protection nor special voice. The lesson will be a hard one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Illiberal Democracy Threatens Our Foundational Moral Principles
This administration rejects American values as it embraces bribes from foreign dictators, harasses journalists, imprisons op-ed writers, and threatens judges.
May 19, 2025
At its deepest level, government is a moral force grounded in a moral view of the world.
It may not comport with morality as most of us view it; the Saudi oppression of women, the Russian violence against the queer community, and the Iranian brutal suppression of that nation’s democracy movement are all examples of things most Americans consider immoral.
But each is grounded in a particular moral worldview that those governments and their leaders have adopted.
While America has experienced many dark moral episodes throughout our history, we’ve always held or at least espoused a basic set of moral principles:
- That all people are born equal under the law; that power should flow up from the people rather than down from elected leaders;
- That a free press, free speech, and freedom from religion are essential to liberty; and
- That defending the basic rights of all people to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is the core function of a democratic republic.
Until now.
Republicans in the House of Representatives just inserted into their must-pass “Big, Beautiful” multi-trillion-dollar-tax-break-for-billionaires legislation a provision that would enable the president to designate any nonprofit—from Harvard to the American Civil Liberties Union to your local Democratic Party—a “terrorist-supporting organization” that then loses their tax-exempt status, effectively putting them out of business.
And who decides who gets that designation? The president. And he gets do to it in secret.
When we abandon our own stated principles in foreign relations, those first laid out in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the results are almost uniformly bad for us, for them, and for democracy around the world.
This is exactly how both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán first destroyed dissent and free speech in Russia and Hungary.
U.S. President Donald Trump has been pursuing this for a decade, from his trying to designate Antifa a “terrorist organization” to his attacks on our universities to his use of Stalin’s phrase “enemy of the people” to describe journalists and opinion writers like me.
One level above these core democratic principles—of free speech, the right to protest, and the power of the people in free and fair elections to change our leadership—are two major reformations that came about after major national upheavals.
The first was after the Civil War, when the nation (at least in principle) embraced the humanity and citizenship of nonwhite people with Reconstruction and the 13th through the 15th Amendments to the Constitution. The second was during the Republican Great Depression, when FDR rebooted our republic to become the supporter of last resort for the working class, producing the world’s first more-than-half-of-us middle class.
Now Trump, Elon Musk, and their cabal of right-wing billionaires are trying to dissolve virtually all of this, replacing it with the sort of “illiberal democracy” we see in Russia and Hungary, where there are still elections (but their outcome is pre-determined), still legal protections for the press and free speech (but only when that speech doesn’t challenge those in power), and only the wealthy can truly enjoy safety and security.
After the Saudi, Emirati, and Qatari governments each gave the Trump family massive gifts in the form of billion-dollar development and Trump hotel or golf course licensing deals, Trump made a speech in which he abandoned our 250-year history of advocating democracy around the world.
Of course, as mentioned, we’ve often failed at that mission in the past. Former President Ronald Reagan’s support for the death squads in Central America haunt our southern border to this day; former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s embrace of the Shah of Iran still rattles the Middle East; and former President Richard Nixon’s tolerance of Chinese brutality led us to, in the name of capitalism, help that nation’s communist leaders create the most powerful and medieval surveillance state in world history.
But these exceptions prove the rule: When we abandon our own stated principles in foreign relations, those first laid out in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the results are almost uniformly bad for us, for them, and for democracy around the world. And it becomes even more destructive when this administration rejects American values as it embraces bribes from foreign dictators, harasses journalists, imprisons op-ed writers, and threatens judges.
This issue of morality in government has been at the core of our political debate for centuries. Then-President Harry Truman was explicit about it way back in 1952:
Now, I want to say something very important to you about this issue of morality in government.
I stand for honest government… To me, morality in government means more than a mere absence of wrongdoing. It means a government that is fair to all. I think it is just as immoral for the Congress to enact special tax favors into law as it is for a tax official to connive in a crooked tax return. It is just as immoral to use the lawmaking power of the government to enrich the few at the expense of the many, as it is to steal money from the public treasury. That is stealing money from the public treasury…
Legislation that favored the greed of monopoly and the trickery of Wall Street was a form of corruption that did the country four times as much harm as Teapot Dome ever did.Private selfish interests are always trying to corrupt the government in this way. Powerful financial groups are always trying to get favors for themselves.
Tragically, for both America and democracy around the world, this is not how Donald Trump was raised and does not comport with the GOP’s current worldview. Fred Trump built a real estate empire through racism, fraud, and deceit. He raised Donald to view every transaction as necessarily win-lose, every rule or regulation as something to get around, and every government official as somebody to be influenced with threats or money.
The GOP embraced a similar worldview with the Reagan Revolution as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich notes in his must-read Substack newsletter:
But starting with Reagan, America went off the rails. Deregulation, privatization, free trade, wild gambling by Wall Street, union-busting, record levels of inequality, near-stagnant wages for most, staggering wealth for a few, big money taking over our politics.
Stock buybacks and the well-being of investors became more important than good jobs with good wages. Corporate profits more important than the common good.
Greed is a type of moral stance. It’s not one that open, pluralistic, democratic societies embrace beyond their tolerance of regulated capitalism, but it is a position that expresses a certain type of morality, one most famously expounded by David Koch and Ayn Rand.
It’s inconsistent with the history of humanity itself, as I document in detail in The Hidden History of American Democracy: Rediscovering Humanity’s Ancient Way of Living. From Margaret Mead pointing out how healed leg bones in hundred-thousand-year-old skeletons show that ancient societies cared for their wounded to the ways Native American tribes dealt with people who stole or hoarded even without the use of police or prisons, the triumph of greed has historically been the exception rather the rule.
When Donald Trump said, “My whole life I’ve been greedy,” it was one of the few honest bits of self-appraisal he’s ever tendered. And it should have warned all of us.
Greed and hunger for power are, ultimately, anathema to our traditional American values.
And it’s high time we began to say so, and to teach our children the difference between a moral nation that protects its weakest citizens while promoting democracy around the world and an “illiberal democracy” like Russia, Hungary, and the vision of today’s GOP.
We’ve been better than this in the past, and it’s high time we return to those moral positions that truly made America great.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular