Cronyism and favoritism
A core part of how kleptocracies work is handing out favors to supporters in exchange for loyalty. Sometimes, officials simply steal from public funds, referred to as "embezzlement." It is not clear that the Trump administration has stolen directly from the public. Instead, they have handed out gifts, contracts, and subsidies to loyal supporters.
ACTION 19 | Elon Musk's appointment brings an unprecedented level of baggage to the DOGE office
Cooperation with a kleptocracy has its benefits. It is likely that no one has benefited as much as Elon Musk, who already had billions in contracts with the federal government. Journalists have started to document how Musk likely benefits personally from his ability to use his role within the administration to create new rules, oversee the granting of new contracts, and place regulatory burdens in place that damage his competitors. Musk has equivocated about whether he is a government employee. This is important because, if he is, then he would be subject to numerous ethical and legal reviews. If he is not, then it is possible that he is exercising federal government authorities through DOGE that he should not have as a private individual.
ACTION 20 | The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers irregular Starlink contracts
According to the International Republican Institute's Kleptocrat's Playbook, irregular procurement is one of the main ways kleptocrats steal from the public:
Certain types of public expenditure have proven to be especially vulnerable to embezzlement and kickbacks: particularly the infrastructure, health and defense sectors. This is primarily because of the large amounts of money involved in these areas of government spending, the potential loopholes created by the relative complexity of the systems and contracts involved, and the fact that stealing indirectly from taxpayers makes victims less likely to notice immediately.
Contracts around Starlink, a subsidiary of Elon Musk's SpaceX, have raised numerous questions. Starlink is a company that maintains the world's largest array of low-earth orbit satellites.
In late February, reports surfaced that the FAA would likely cancel a $2.4 billion contract with Verizon to upgrade its air traffic control communications system, possibly replacing it with Starlink. The move was allegedly encouraged by Elon Musk in his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), raising concerns about improper influence. The FAA initially denied this, saying instead that the agency was merely testing Starlink as an alternative.
A number of groups have sought accountability. Following these revelations, the Campaign Legal Center filed an ethics complaint with the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General. The complaint alleges that Musk, acting as a “special government employee,” violated federal conflict of interest laws by steering FAA decisions toward benefiting Starlink. On March 17, lawmakers sent a letter to the DOJ and DOT Inspector General requesting a formal investigation, taking issue with Musk’s dual roles and potential legal violations.
The case seems to point to possible retaliation or purging by those who support Musk's companies. The Guardian reported that federal workforce cuts spearheaded by DOGE spared staff supporting Musk-aligned companies, including at the FAA. Critics argue that this points to a pattern of preserving government capacity where it directly benefits Musk’s business interests and cutting it where it did not, raising additional ethical questions. While the decisions are not definitive at the moment, the mere possibility of such an extreme conflict of interest is problematic by itself and could open the door to similar practices by other oligarchs. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 21 | DOGE threatens FAA offices involved in active enforcement of SpaceX violations
One of the ways that kleptocracies function is that they enforce the law arbitrarily, wielding it as a weapon against those outside of the ruler's inner circle while allowing selected oligarchs to operate above the law. In June and July of 2023, SpaceX changed its plans on rocket launches without FAA approval. In September 2024, the FAA fined the company more than $600,000. Musk publicly complained about the fines and the head of the agency defended the regulatory decision.
As part of early DOGE-led reductions in force, the FAA terminated hundreds of probationary employees, including maintenance and administrative staff. These layoffs coincided with the onboarding of SpaceX engineers as senior advisers to the FAA, raising concerns about regulatory capture. The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union condemned the dismissals, stating that the decision was "hastily made" and "harmful to employees," many of whom were military veterans.
Terminations were followed by threats of reprisal. SpaceX engineer Ted Malaska, serving as a temporary special government employee, reportedly warned FAA staff that anyone impeding his work would be reported to Musk and risk termination. As of April 2025, SpaceX has not paid the civil penalties for launch license violations in 2023 and the matter remains unresolved. It remains unclear whether the fines will be paid or rescinded, and whether the office that regulates SpaceX will be purged. It is, however, clear that regulated individuals and companies should not be in charge of personnel decisions at a regulatory agency. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 22 | Giving rural broadband to Starlink
The FCC’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program was designed to close the digital divide by providing high-quality internet to rural customers. The program has made slow progress, to say the least. At the outset of the Trump administration, rather than reroute funds for cable to 5G systems, the administration changed rules to make Elon Musk's Starlink the main recipient of federal broadband funds. Rival applicants were denied and the $42 billion contract went to Starlink. While the program may had some previous problems, one can hardly argue that locking in a monopoly through Starlink over locally controlled public options is in the public interest. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 23 | Department of Justice drops SpaceX discrimination suit
In August 2023, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed an administrative complaint alleging that SpaceX discouraged asylum recipients and refugees from applying for jobs from 2018 to 2022. SpaceX defended itself, saying that it was following export control rules. The government, in return, argued that no such controls exist. In 2024, the DoJ brought a case against SpaceX, arguing that it had violated federal law by refusing to hire or consider applicants based on their citizenship status. Yet on February 21, 2025, the DoJ, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, dropped the case against the company without explanation. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 24 | Department of Labor (DoL) drops labor investigations into Musk's companies
When Trump took office in January 2025, various parts of the DoL had ongoing investigations into Elon Musk's companies, including Tesla and SpaceX. These included the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The investigations related to allegations of unfair labor practices, safety violations, and discriminatory work practices, such as:
A worker death at a Tesla factory in Austin, Texas,
Racial discrimination and workplace retaliation at a California factory,
Retaliatory firings of employees who criticized Musk or engaged in union organizing activities, and
Potentially illegal surveillance of employees during unionization efforts.
Tesla responded to these allegations aggressively. In the case of the NLRB, Tesla (and Amazon) claimed that the body itself was unconstitutional. In late January 2025, Trump fired NLRB members, making similar arguments to Musk's. This rendered the board temporarily unable to render decisions as it is no longer has a quorum.
Personnel was not the only problem. Data breaches were an additional concern. A whistleblower complaint filed by an IT staffer at the NLRB alleged that DOGE, led by Elon Musk, may have accessed sensitive internal data from the NLRB, raising concerns about potential manipulation of pending labor cases. (The same sources alleged that DOGE's access was followed only minutes later by cyber-attacks originating from Russia.) This was followed by threats that any employees speaking to the media will be criminally charged.
The cases are still ongoing but there is genuine concern that the various labor agencies have had their security and independence deeply compromised. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 25 | Weakening oversight of Tesla and autonomous vehicle safety
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for overseeing road safety, including Tesla’s self-driving programs. In April 2025, a whistleblower complaint alleged that DOGE employees influenced NHTSA staff to deprioritize investigations into Tesla’s autopilot and full self-driving features. Although the complaint’s full details have not yet been made public, early reports suggest that DOGE officials pushed for an "efficiency review" of NHTSA investigations, which critics argue effectively delayed or muted critical safety probes. Civil society groups and automotive safety advocates have called for renewed independent investigations to ensure that federal auto safety enforcement remains robust and impartial. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 26 | Distorting the electric vehicle market to benefit Tesla
The Trump Administration has tried to repeal some electric vehicle tax credits. (As with many things, it remains to be seen if and how an executive order can gut a congressional mandate.) Notably, these are the credits buyers would get upon purchase of a vehicle. It may come as a surprise to some, however, that another major tax policy remains in place: EV offset credits. Major brands that do not meet fleet electrification targets must pay those who do meet those targets. Because Tesla has a purely electric fleet, well in excess of the fleet target, it receives most of the offset fees in the United States. Offsets added up to $2.76 billion income in 2025 (for a total of $10.4 billion), accounting for roughly 30% of its profit. This appears to be a blatant conflict of interest that has the effect of undercutting value to consumers and limiting new entrants into the EV market. The long term cost is the slowing of a transition to more sustainable transport and future generations—those least liable for the causes of climate change—will bear the costs of a few people getting richer in the present. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 27 | The State Department and Tesla Cybertrucks
On February 12, 2025, a procurement revision increased US Department of State spending on armored Tesla Cybertrucks for diplomatic missions from $483,000 to $400 million. While the Department of State initially stated that the procurement was on hold, the scale and timing of this award raises questions about procurement independence and political favoritism. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 28 | DOGE ends oversight of Neuralink
Elon Musk has another company, called Neuralink, that is developing brain implants. At the start of Trump's administraiton, the FDA and USDA were carrying out an investigation of the company. In January, Trump fired USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong (along with 16 other inspectors general), who was leading an investigation into Neuralink. Then, over the weekend of February 15–16, 2025, twenty FDA staff were dismissed from the Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices. The officers were actively reviewing a Neuralink device for approval. Reports suggest the firings were coordinated by DOGE, with further cuts projected. The dismissal of independent reviewers during an active regulatory process would represent a significant breach of global regulatory norms in any developed country. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 29 | Trump rewards loyalists with media stock
In kleptocratic systems, bribery no longer involves instances of people handing over envelopes filled with cash. Instead, value is transferred in ways that circumvent the law, blurring the line between public service and private gain. In January 2025, Trump awarded over $800,000 worth of Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) stock to political nominees Kash Patel (FBI director) and Linda McMahon (Department of Education). TMTG is the parent company of the President’s social media site, Truth Social.
These stock grants—ostensibly gifts—create an open channel through which interested parties can quietly purchase influence. Because these officials now hold an equity stake, any investor or intermediary can offer to "buy them out" at inflated values, turning market trades into a mechanism for funneling cash to officials overseeing education, justice, and security policy.
Both McMahon and Patel informed the Senate and the Office of Government Ethics that they would refuse or forfeit the stock (and divest from other holdings), although it remains unclear whether they have fulfilled these promises. The mere fact that the stock was offered from a president to nominees is likely without precedent in the United States and raises numerous red flags. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 30 | The administration dissolves the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
On February 20, 2025, the CDC dissolved its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The move has been linked to vaccine misinformation campaigns and associated financial incentives. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a critic of vaccine mandates and the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration, is closely affiliated with a nonprofit that may benefit financially from increased vaccine litigation. Whether coincidental or deliberate, the dissolution of this advisory body aligns with patterns seen in other kleptocratic systems, where science policy is undermined to the benefit of companies and organizations linked to the ruler's inner circle. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 31 | Privatizing public property risks Russian-Style "asset stripping"
Kleptocrats like Vladimir Putin privatize public property, often selling government assets at below-market rates to the politically connected. All or most governments have formal processes for the privatization of publicly held assets and the nationalization of strategic industries or assets. What differentiates a kleptocracy is that the process for nationalization or privatization goes outside of regular channels, often through insider deals and without transparency. In addition, kleptocrats often strip public property of its most valuable elements and leave troubled parts with the public.
The Trump administration is increasingly moving to privatize or monetize public assets, redirecting public wealth into private hands through a combination of regulatory changes, executive orders, and discretionary deals. Federal buildings, public lands, retirement savings, and even national forests are being opened to private investors under favorable terms. This process risks undermining long-standing safeguards meant to preserve public resources for future generations, favoring short-term profits over public stewardship. This includes:
Turning major trusts into private fiefdoms: Under the "Freedom Cities" or "startup cities" initiative, the Trump administration has proposed turning underutilized federal properties over to private developers. These properties would be free of federal regulation and outside of the existing rule of law. San Francisco's Presidio, a national treasure, has reportedly been a key target of the organizations wishing to turn public property into a private venture. Trump moved to dissolve the public trust that manages the 1,500 acre park in late March 2025.
Public buildings: The General Services Administration (GSA) manages most of the buildings and leases owned by the federal government. Some people have long advocated for privatization of the organization. Under Trump, it has accelerated plans to auction or lease federal buildings, with major real estate trusts positioned to benefit. According to analysis by Fortune magazine, the move to privatize some 500 buildings and then lease them would provide a short-term cash infusion, but could leave taxpayers poorer over time.
Post offices: Privatization also hangs over the head of the United States Postal Service. A discussion of the merits and demerits of such reforms can be found here. In brief, a hasty privatization could leave private sector actors to profit off of the most lucrative services and markets, while leaving taxpayers with the most expensive and unprofitable aspects, such as rural delivery.
Federal lands: Executive orders in early 2025 directed the Bureau of Land Management to prioritize "productive use" over conservation, expediting the leasing of federal lands for mining, drilling, and development. Some leases have been awarded without competitive bidding. Ostensibly, the privatization of public lands is being done to counter the national housing shortage, but others accuse this of being a smokescreen to fast track access to public resources for wealthy elites.
Forest Service permits: The US Forest Service has loosened regulations around commercial permits, allowing private companies expanded access to national forests for logging, mining, and private recreation projects. The changes have drawn criticism for weakening environmental review processes.
(Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 32 | Trump megadonor Tim Barnard gets an exceptional sign off on oil pipeline
Tim Barnard owns Barnard Construction. He and his wife gave $1 million to Trump’s campaign in 2024, in addition to contributing to many other local and state Republican campaigns, according to Federal Election Commission records. During the first Trump administration, Barnard Construction received more than $1 billion to build parts of the border wall. Other contractors alleged that Barnard received this through an illegal no-bid contract following major donations in 2016, 2019 and 2020. The contract began as a $143 million contract, but soon exceeded over $1 billion, in part through a loophole in the competitive bidding process.
The Canadian company Enbridge has contracted Barnard Construction in expanding its Line 5 oil and gas pipeline. Critics allege that the deal has already gone outside of normal procedures. In late February, after the president declared an "energy emergency" on his first day in office, the Line 5 project was exempted from the usual Army Corps of Engineers review process. Organizations accuse the administration of abusing national security claims in order to reward major donors such as Barnard.
(Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 33 | Oil and gas win big with Trump's victory
The United States is the world's largest producer of oil and gas. In 2020, Donald Trump, speaking at a rally, stated:
But I call some guy, the head of Exxon, I don’t know. I’ll use a company, "Hi, how are you doing? How’s energy coming? When are you doing the exploration? Oh, you need a couple of permits, huh? OK." But I call the head of Exxon, I say, "I'd love you to send me $25 million for the campaign...I will hit a home run every single call.”
Exxon denied that such a call had ever place. Nonetheless, this triggered an investigation by the House Budget Committee.
In April 2024, oil executives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. They collectively contributed $14.1 million to his campaign, making them the fourth largest donor group. While it is not clear that any direct quid pro quo was discussed, the Trump energy strategy is a boon for oil and gas producers, heavily tipping the scale in favor of their sectors. The administration fast tracked permitting for oil and gas, froze new permits for offshore wind, and paused renewable projects on federal lands. On March 18, 2025, the administration met with executives once again to discuss potential protections from liability for damage. The Trump administration has further moved to cut states' abilities to seek compensation for climate damage and has clawed back money from clean energy promoters. (Last updated 4/21/25)
ACTION 34 | Cryptocurrencies win big policy concessions after being among the largest donors
Few industries have seen as quick of a policy turnaround as the group of companies and technologies around cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets. During the Biden administration, the industry saw increasing regulation through anti-money laundering provisions, sanctions enforcement, and securities regulation. The Trump administration has done an about face, after the crypto industry was among the top spenders during the 2024 election cycle. Trump has announced a crypto-reserve, directing the federal government to use taxpayer dollars to buy a large amount of the reportedly risky currency—small by percentage of the total US reserves, but massive relative to the size of the industry. At the same time, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in charge of protecting consumers, has announced a roll back of investigations on alleged cryptocurrency scams. The Securities and Exchange Commission, under new leader Mark Uyeda, has softened its stance toward protecting investors in the assets. On the law enforcement front, numerous individuals and companies under investigation have had a reprieve. This is before taking into consideration the fact that the majority of Trump's assets are now in cryptocurrency companies. (Last updated 4/21/25)