Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Trump upends DOJ's Civil Rights Division, sparking 'bloodbath' in senior ranks. Trump's hand-picked head of the division has outlined priorities that are dramatically at odds with the way past administrations have enforced civil rights law.
by Ken Dilanian
nbcnews.com
April 23, 2025, 5:29 PM MDT
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... rcna202622


Harmeet Dhillon in Washington on Feb. 26.Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images file

The Trump administration has quietly transformed the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, forcing out a majority of career managers and implementing new priorities that current and former officials say abandon a decades-long mission of enforcing laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring, housing and voting rights.

More than a dozen senior lawyers — many with decades of experience working under presidents of both parties — have been reassigned, the current and former officials say. Some have resigned in frustration after they were moved to less desirable roles unrelated to their expertise, according to the sources.

“It’s been a complete bloodbath,” said a senior Justice Department lawyer in the division who is not authorized to speak publicly.

Last week, President Donald Trump’s hand-picked head of the division issued a series of memos outlining priorities that are dramatically at odds with the way both Republican and Democratic administrations have enforced civil rights law — including the first Trump administration.

Rather than focusing on enforcing federal laws against discrimination, the division is now charged with pursuing priorities laid out in a series of Trump’s executive orders, including “Keeping Men out of Women's Sports” and “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” according to the memos, which were issued by division head Harmeet Dhillon and obtained by NBC News.

Dhillon is a conservative culture warrior who represented Trump in challenging the results of the 2020 election and ardently backed his baseless claims of fraud.

The changes have not been publicly announced by the Justice Department. Reuters first reported some of them Tuesday.

“This is a 180 shift from the division’s traditional mission,” said a former senior official in the division who declined to be named in fear of retaliation.

"These documents appear to have been created in a vacuum completely divorced from reality," the former official said. "The division can only enforce statutes that have been passed by Congress, and these orders seem to contemplate division attorneys’ executing on work that fundamentally departs from the division’s long-standing mission.”

In a statement, Dhillon portrayed the changes as a normal shift of emphasis in a new administration, as well as a quest for efficiency.

“Each new administration has its own priorities, and allocates resources accordingly," Dhillon said. "The Trump administration is no different. When I assumed my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I learned that certain sections in Civil Rights had substantial existing caseloads and backlogs, and that formed the basis of temporary details to assist those sections in getting, and staying, caught up."

She added: “The Civil Rights Division looks forward to continuing to aggressively protecting the civil rights of Americans."

NBC News spoke to 10 current and former employees of the Civil Rights Division for this article, as well as other sources familiar with the Justice Department’s operations. Most declined to be identified, citing fear of retaliation.

The sources say many of the division’s section chiefs have been transferred to roles unrelated to their legal backgrounds, including in the complaint adjudication office and the office that handles public records requests.

“Every presidential administration has its own policy priorities," said Stacey Young, who spent 18 years in the division before resigning in January, "but I don’t think there’s any precedent for an administration almost completely refocusing the civil rights division’s enforcement priorities the way this one has."

"The loss is truly hard to quantify," added Young, who co-founded Justice Connection, a group now trying to highlight Trump administration changes to the Justice Department. "Vital civil rights work is not going to get done."

The overhaul of the Civil Rights Division is a microcosm of what has been happening across the federal government, as the Trump administration has removed nonpartisan civil servants and dismantled or reoriented federal agencies with a speed and an audacity that few thought was possible. Similar changes have been happening to a lesser degree at other Justice Department offices, current and former officials say. But they say the extent of the repurposing of the Civil Rights Division stands out.

[admin]

“Taking Our Power Back”: Immigrants & Workers Plan for May Day Protests as Trump Marks 100 Days
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
April 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/4/29/ ... transcript



Organizers across the United States are planning a massive day of May Day protests against the Trump administration. Organizers say that they have broad support from groups targeted by the administration, including immigrants, federal workers and more. “Instead of attacking only one community … they are attacking everybody at the same time, and that enabled us to gather a really broad coalition,” says Jorge Mújica, strategic organizer for Arise Chicago.

In New York, organizers are calling on people to march alongside them in Foley Square. “We need to fight this corporate takeover,” says Nisha Tabassum, lead organizer for worker issues at Make the Road New York. “We are the many; they are the few.”

Los Angeles organizers are expecting hundreds of thousands of protesters to join them in opposition to Trump’s policies. “We are taking our power back,” says Georgia Flowers Lee, National Education Association vice president for United Teachers Los Angeles.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Today marks 100 days since President Trump returned to the White House. Multiple polls show his approval rating after 100 days is lower than any president in 80 years.

Ahead of his hundredth day, Trump signed three new executive orders, including one targeting sanctuary cities. The order instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue, quote, “all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures,” unquote, against state and local jurisdictions who refuse to assist with Trump’s mass deportation plans. A second order further militarizes local police departments and seeks to punish local officials who, quote, “unlawfully prohibit law enforcement officers from carrying out duties,” unquote. It also provides legal resources to officers accused of abuses. A third executive order requires professional truck drivers to be proficient in English.

This comes as outrage grows over Trump’s sweeping anti-immigrant crackdown. On Friday, the Trump administration deported to Honduras three U.S. citizen children, including a 4-year-old boy who’s actively receiving treatment for a rare form of stage 4 cancer. The boy was removed with his 7-year-old sister, who’s also a U.S. citizen, and their mother. In a separate case, the U.S. removed a 2-year-old U.S. citizen along with her mother.

The Trump administration also continues to refuse court orders to bring home Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was mistakenly flown to El Salvador, by the Department of Justice’s own admission, on March 15th.

Over the weekend, ICE conducted a number of high-profile immigration raids. In Florida, ICE worked with local officials to detain nearly 800 people. Meanwhile, in Colorado Springs, ICE agents raided a nightclub and made over a hundred arrests.

Immigrant rights groups across the country are planning major May Day protests for Thursday.

We begin today’s show with two guests helping to plan the May Day protests. Here in New York, Nisha Tabassum, the lead organizer for worker issues at Make the Road New York, an immigrant rights and advocacy group. And in Chicago, we’re joined by Jorge Mújica, the strategic organizer for Arise Chicago, which advocates for immigrant workers’ rights, one of the lead organizers of the May Day protest in Chicago.

Jorge, before we talk about those major protests on Thursday, can you go to these executive orders and respond to what President Trump did, very significantly, on this eve of the 100th day he’s back in office, and interestingly, as his polls across the board are tanking, including how he’s dealing with immigrants?

JORGE MÚJICA: Good morning, Amy. Thank you for having us here.

These are smokescreens. President Trump has signed 157, I think, executive orders related to immigration. It is not possible to even comply, start complying with the legal ones — forget about challenging the illegal ones. It’s just a continuous circus. He will be issuing orders and more orders, even if they don’t make any kind of sense. The federal government cannot mandate a local police department to do anything or to not do anything. The city of Chicago is a municipality completely free to decide what exactly their police does. So I don’t think we have to pay a whole lot more attention to this kind of crazy executive orders.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jorge, could you talk about the protests that are planned not only for May Day, but for the following days? Chicago, back in 2006, you were part of the organizers of the first immigrant rights protest, and it was really Chicago that set the whole nation off on a series of protests that stunned the country back then.

JORGE MÚJICA: That’s right. And I think we took the lead again. Back in January, we started meeting, because there were several calls by several people, mostly social media personalities, saying that we should have a day without immigrants here and there. And we decided that we should concentrate in one particular day, one particular date, to really be able to get everybody together.

The Trump administration miscalculated completely. Instead of attacking only one community as they did in 2006, they are attacking everybody at the same time, and that enabled us to gather a really broad coalition with labor unions, with federal workers, with students, with teachers at universities, and every other community and put together this event on May Day.

May Day was born in Chicago. And we’ve recovered May Day for history, because it had been completely forgotten. Everybody thought it was a foreign celebration. But it’s May Day Chicago. This is the origin of May Day.

So, we decided to march on this day and to have several actions on the following days. On Friday, May 2nd, students are going to walk out their colleges and universities and high schools. And we are promoting a no margaritas and no guacamole weekend. You know, we cannot have a society celebrating a Cinco de Mayo without Mexicans. If they want their Cinco de Mayo, they have to want Mexicans in this town and this city. So we are putting together this series of events over the weekend, starting on May Day, Thursday.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nisha Tabassum, could you talk about what is being planned for New York City?

NISHA TABASSUM: Yeah. Thank you so much, Jorge.

You know, we’re living in a moment where we’re seeing unprecedented attacks on unions and workers in this country. We’re seeing corporate takeovers of our federal government. We’re seeing companies and billionaires exploiting workers for their own gain.

And so, right now we are joining — Make the Road is joining over 50 unions and advocacy groups and immigrants’ rights groups to come together on May 1st at 5 p.m. at Foley Square to demand that we need to stand back and fight. We need to fight this corporate takeover. We are the many; they are the few. It’s time to stand back and fight. So we’re really encouraging everyone to come join us, come march with us. As you’ve already stated, you know, labor — May Day is rooted in resistance. And this is a moment that we all need to come together to fight against these federal cuts, to fight against the attacks on all different kinds of workers, especially immigrant workers.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jorge, I wanted to go back to you for a second. You’ve also talked about — Arise Chicago is also targeting certain corporations for consumer boycotts. Could you talk about that, as well?

JORGE MÚJICA: That’s correct. We, the Consejo de Resistencia en Defensa del Inmigrante — that’s the right denomination — we are targeting three major stores. We are targeting Walmart. We are targeting Target and McDonald’s, mostly because of their complying with Donald Trump orders to do away with minority hiring and, you know, affirmative actions, and also two particular brands, very popular in the Mexican community and the Latino community, and those are Goya products and Miller beer, because they are sponsors of the Republican Party, because they donated money to Donald Trump. So, we decided to go ahead and stop buying these products. And we will be promoting that boycott over the May Day weekend, too.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re also joined by Georgia Flowers Lee, National Education Association vice president for United Teachers Los Angeles, has been an educator for over 20 years. As we mark this hundredth day of President Trump’s term, he has signed I don’t know how many executive orders, both around immigration, most recently on the eve of this day, yesterday, and also around DEI, around diversity, equity and inclusion. If you can talk about why you’re going to be out in the streets on Thursday and what your gravest concerns are right now? Interestingly, overall, with these polls tanking, you may be well representing the majority of people in this country, Georgia.

GEORGIA FLOWERS LEE: Good morning, Amy. Thank you for having me.

Yeah, we’re going to be out in the streets on May Day along with a broad coalition of other labor unions, of advocacy groups, of immigrant rights groups, because the attacks that are coming are targeting our children, targeting our immigrant families. Really, it seems as if it’s a move to destroy the foundation on which our democracy is built. All the cuts that are coming out of the Department of Education, what that is going to do to our students, particularly our students who are most marginalized, our students with exceptional needs, our students who begin life with challenges, what happens to those students? And we are keeping our eye on the move to privatize our public education, which we all acknowledge is the foundation of democracy. It’s what gives us an opportunity. Without public education, kids who start off behind the ball are simply not going to have a chance.

So we feel it is our absolute moral obligation to stand up to fight for students and for families, particularly our immigrant families and our students who are terrified. We had, just a couple weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security try to invade two of our elementary schools and take students out. Luckily, the staff at that school — at those schools were able to defend and prevent it from happening. But imagine how terrifying that is for our students and for the families who entrust their students, who entrust their children to our care. So we see this as a moral imperative for us to stand up, to stand in coalition with others, and to push back against what is happening.

And so, we’ll be out there on May Day, but we will also be out there on May 17th. We are mobilizing with other teachers’ unions across the metropolitan L.A. area to show up. And we are showing up at SpaceX, and we are letting the folks — the folks who are controlling the levers of power know that we are taking our power back. We are not ceding anything. And we think it is absolutely our moral obligation to do so.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Georgia Flowers Lee, could you talk about the response of the public school districts in California to the recent announcement of the Department of Education that all school districts have to certify that they’re not involved with any kind of, what the government calls, discriminatory diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or they’ll face cutoffs of Title I money?

GEORGIA FLOWERS LEE: Across the board, we are saying no. The California Department of Education has said no. Our state affiliate, the California Teachers Association, has said no. Diversity is our strength. We want inclusion. Inclusion means we all get an opportunity, we all get to be involved, we all get to participate. And equity simply means, you know, that we are trying to level the playing field. So we are absolutely saying no to it. And my district, the L.A. Unified School District, I believe, has already responded and said this is not — this is not something that we are going to comply with. And so, across the board, we are saying this is not acceptable to us, and we are not complying with it, because we see it for what it is.

AMY GOODMAN: Nisha, I wanted to go to an issue here in New York. Last week, a judge temporarily halted efforts by Mayor Eric Adams to reopen an ICE office inside the Rikers Island jail complex. Adams first signaled the move after he met with Trump’s so-called border czar Tom Homan in February. At the time, the New York Civil Liberties Union slammed Adams’ administration for selling out New Yorkers for Trump’s dangerous deportation regime. The group said in a statement, quote, “ICE’s presence on Rikers serves no legitimate purpose, and opens the door to unlawful collusion between local law enforcement and federal immigration officials in violation of our city’s well-established sanctuary protections. … New Yorkers see this for what it is: Mayor Adams skirting the City Council, cozying up to Trump, and putting immigrant New Yorkers in harm’s way,” the group said. And we all know about the Trump administration dropping the charges against Mayor Eric Adams, which many people called a quid pro quo for him then doing their bidding around immigration. If you can respond to what Eric Adams is pushing for, what the judge has stopped?

NISHA TABASSUM: Yeah. Thank you for that question.

You know, luckily, we live in a city that has a really strong City Council, that has passed really strong immigrant protections in New York City. The City Council has sued to stop the Adams administration executive order from allowing ICE on Rikers, and there’s a temporary restraining order. And I think this shows us that, like, we really need our state leadership to take strong action to protect immigrant communities and workers and families in New York.

You know, Make the Road New York, along with labor unions and other immigrant groups, are pushing for New York for All, which is a law that would prevent cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. No one should have their rights be different based on where they live, right? The goal of New York for All is to standardize these strong immigrant protections across the state, not just in New York City. We have county executives in Nassau, Long Island, you know, collaborating with the federal government willingly to have detectives cooperating with ICE. And this would prevent that, right? So, this is the time where we actually really need our state leaders to step up and incorporate protections and standardize protections across the board, not just in New York City. Your rights should not be different based on where you live.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jorge Mújica, I’m wondering if you could talk about where people are gathering in Chicago on May Day and what the plans are for the protests that day.

JORGE MÚJICA: Yeah, we are gathering at 11 a.m. at Union Park, the corner of Lake and Ashland Avenues, and we’re going to be marching across downtown all the way pretty much to Lake Michigan. We’re going to cross the whole downtown. We will be arriving at Grant Park around maybe 2 to 2:30 p.m., and we will have a program continues until 4 p.m. or so.

We have over 180 labor unions and community organizations, and everybody wants to speak, because, again, since everybody is under attack, everybody has a say on this, so everybody wants to speak. It’s going to be a long program, the whole day going on. And we hope everybody comes over. We are expecting about half a million people there.

AMY GOODMAN: And I wanted to ask, Jorge Mújica, about ICE entering the schools in Chicago and the response, overall, of the community.

JORGE MÚJICA: Oh, they have tried. The Secret Service, back in January, tried to detain, or interrogate, at least, an 11-year-old kid at a school. And that prompted a strong response from the city of Chicago. We have now in place a full policy on who’s responsible for, you know, impeding, really impeding, entry to ICE agencies or FBI or Secret Service, if they don’t follow due procedure, due process. Nobody can enter a school at any time. There are designated persons to talk to the kids about it. Really, the city put a whole plan together for the safety of the kids.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about, Nisha, here in New York, this executive order that was signed yesterday, the targeting of sanctuary cities?

NISHA TABASSUM: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: What does that mean for New York City?

NISHA TABASSUM: It means that New York City really needs to stand steadfast in its protections of years of advocacy, passing laws that protect immigrants coming into New York. They make up the fabric of everyday life. Immigrant New Yorkers, you know, their labor powers our cities, and they make our cities vibrant. Studies have shown sanctuary city laws actually make our communities safer. It fosters actually more trust between immigrants and law enforcement to come forward and report crime. So we’re really, like, urging cities and states to remain steadfast in their protections and not give into these threats from the Trump administration.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And finally, Georgia Flowers, what are the plans for the rallies and the marches on May Day in Los Angeles, for those people from that area who may want to participate?

GEORGIA FLOWERS LEE: So, we are meeting at 9 a.m. in the intersection of Figueroa Street and Olympic Boulevard, gathering together with hopefully 100,000 of our friends and neighbors, and we are marching through downtown to City Hall. So, we’re looking for folks to come out and join us. And there’s every indication that it’s going to be massive.

AMY GOODMAN: And before you go, Georgia Flowers Lee, in Los Angeles, as an educator and a person who’s particularly concerned with children on the autism spectrum, how have Trump’s budget cuts impacted kids, particularly in your schools?

GEORGIA FLOWERS LEE: So, we are watching what the effect of these proposed cuts could be. So, our students are entitled — our students with special needs, particularly on the autism spectrum, are entitled to supports that allow them to thrive, to show up as their best selves in our classrooms. And so, we are pushing to make sure that those supports remain. However, whatever the federal government cuts has to be made up for at the local level. And so, our district, our state will have to absorb those costs, which means that, you know, there will be less to fund all our students if the federal government is not providing what it should to help support our neediest students. So, we are pushing our district to make sure that they continue to get whatever they can, and we are really impressing on our state Legislature to continue to provide for our students, to make sure that our students have access and that they have the resources that they need.

AMY GOODMAN: Georgia Flowers Lee, I want to thank you so much for being with us, vice president for United Teachers Los Angeles; Jorge Mújica of Arise Chicago; and Nisha Tabassum of Make the Road New York — all involved with organizing May Day protests beginning on Thursday, on this hundredth day, this conversation taking place, of President Trump back in office.

Coming up, we speak with Palestinian American writer Sarah Aziza, author of the new book, The Hollow Half: A Memoir of Bodies and Borders. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Take a Minute” by the Somali Canadian musician K’naan, performing in our Democracy Now! studios back in 2009.

[admin]

Trump-aligned club for the ultra rich launches in Washington. The launch of “Executive Branch” comes as Trump world looks to remake Washington.
by Dasha Burns
Politico
04/26/2025 04:09 PM EDT
Updated: 04/26/2025 05:29 PM EDT


Vivek Ramaswamy, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), Omeed Malik, Vice President JD Vance and Donald Trump Jr. are pictured.
From left: Vivek Ramaswamy, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), Omeed Malik, Vice President JD Vance and Donald Trump Jr. are pictured. Malik and Trump Jr. are launching a private Washington club. | Picture obtained by POLITICO

A new club is coming to Washington — and you probably can’t get in.

Donald Trump Jr., megadonor Omeed Malik and several other investors are launching an invite-only club that costs more than half a million to join with an exclusive post-White House Correspondents’ Dinner gathering, according to an invite obtained by POLITICO and two people with knowledge of the venture, granted anonymity to discuss the private organization.

The “Executive Branch” is the brainchild of Malik and the president’s eldest son, and their partners at conservative fund 1789 Capital. It will be located in Georgetown.

Their goal, the people familiar with the plans say, is to create the highest-end private club that Washington has ever had, and cater to the business and tech moguls who are looking to nurture their relationships with the Trump administration.

The referral requirements and prohibitive pricing is meant to ensure the C-suite crowd can mingle with Trump advisers and cabinet members without the prying eyes of the press and wanna-be insiders. The price tag won’t be a problem for Trump’s cabinet — given it’s by far the wealthiest in history.

The club already has a waitlist.


An invite to an after party.

Spokespeople for Trump Jr., Malik and other investors declined to comment. Some parts of the group’s plans this weekend were first reported by Puck and Semafor.

The official announcement will come Saturday night at a party at the Willard hosted by Malik, David Sacks and Trump Jr.

Steve Bannon Says He’s Reviving the Infamous Willard “War Room”. The Trump-backing felon hopes to reprise his election shenanigans at the downtown DC hotel.
by Dan Friedman
Senior Reporter
Mother Jones
November 5, 2024
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... rump-2024/


Steve Bannon at a news conference hours after his release from prison on Oct. 29. Lev Radin/AP

Steve Bannon claims he is setting up a new version of the Willard Hotel “war room”—the infamous locale from which he and other Trump allies attempted to oversee last-ditch efforts in January 2021 to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Bannon told CBS News’ Robert Costa that the “war room” is being “revived and reorganized” in the hours ahead of today’s election results, with he and other Trump backers gathering at the posh downtown DC hotel.

As with much of what Bannon does, his Election Day announcement mixes self-promotion that may include exaggeration of his importance with genuine menace.

Bannon has been courting media attention since he was released from federal prison last week, where he served four months for contempt of Congress. His new “war room,” on election night, differs from the 2021 gathering on January 5 and 6, where various Trump backers schemed to stop Joe Biden from taking office in part by lobbying GOP lawmakers. It’s not just earlier in the process: Bannon will be thousands of miles away from Trump and his top advisers, who are gathering at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate. It is not clear that the assembly Bannon plans will be more than a watch party.

But it’s safe to assume he sees it as potentially significant. Since 2021, Bannon has used his “War Room” podcast to push the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen and to encourage election deniers to run for local positions that will allow them play a role in the counting of votes in key swing states. That effort appears to have enjoyed substantial success in placing far-right election deniers in key jobs, and could prove vital to Trump’s expected efforts to challenge results in key battleground states.

In a news conference last week, Bannon urged Trump to falsely declare victory on election day, in a effort to convince Trump fans that a win by Vice President Kamala Harris could result only from cheating. “If the votes come in like it looks like they’re gonna come in, he should step up and inform American citizens of exactly what’s going on and not keep people in the dark like was done in 2020,” Bannon told reporters.

Such a declaration would aim to improve on Trump’s false claim of victory at 2am four years ago. In an audio recording I first uncovered in 2022, Bannon told a group of allies assembled on October 31, 2020, that Trump would assert success on election day, even if he lost.

“What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory,” Bannon said. “Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s the winner. He’s just gonna say he’s the winner.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith cited those statements in a motion last month that showed Bannon played a big role in what Smith alleges was a criminal conspiracy led by Trump to interfere with the certification of electoral votes in 2024. Bannon is not charged with a crime in that case.

Smith also revealed that Bannon appeared to have influenced Trump’s decision to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to assert power to block certification of Biden’s victory on January 6. The filing noted that Trump had a conversation with Bannon less than 15 minutes before he called Pence on Jan. 1—a call during which Trump berated Pence for his reluctance to follow a plan Pence later called unconstitutional.

It was on January 5 and 6, 2021, that Bannon, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, attorney John Eastman, longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, and other Trump advisers gathered in a suite of rooms in the Willard to try to coordinate Trump’s efforts to retain power. (Women for America First, a nonprofit set by far right activists Amy and Kylie Kremer paid $70,000 to book the Willard Rooms used by Trump backers, using funds put up by Publix heir Julie Jenkins Fancelli, as I reported earlier this year.)

Smith alleged in his motion last month that the efforts at the Willard Room included calls by Giuliani—made at Trump’s behest—to exploit the mob attack on Congress on Jan. 6 while it was underway, using that mayhem to urge senators to delay the certification of electoral votes.

It remains to be seen if Bannon and other Trump allies get the chance to reconstitute such “war room” efforts on January 6, 2025. Bannon may be tied up then. Starting in December, he is set to face trial in New York for allegedly defrauding donors to a charity that claimed to be raising private funds to help build Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border.

It’s no coincidence the opening salvo is coinciding with the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. In years past, administration officials would rub shoulders and break bread with journalists. But that won’t be the case this year.

President Donald Trump was already planning on skipping the event before Pope Francis’ death took him to Rome, and many of his aides and allies are staying away from the journalism celebration.

Instead the two camps will stay with their own kind.

The Executive Branch party is expected to be the gathering place for the Trump administration and its allies. It’s one of the only events of the weekend White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt will be attending, according to the people familiar.

The owners of the club are Malik, a Trump donor and 1789 Capital founder; his business partner Chris Buskirk; Trump Jr.; and Zach and Alex Witkoff, the sons of Trump envoy Steve Witkoff.

Founding members include Sacks, the Winklevoss brothers and Chamath Palihapitiya.

[admin]

Part 1 of 3

Estimating the Legal Liability Elon Musk May Avoid Through His Government Takeover
by Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Minority Staff
April 27, 2025
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content ... flicts.pdf

MEMORANDUM

To: Interested Parties
Fr: Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Minority Staff
Da: April 27, 2025
Re: Calculating Risk: Estimating the Legal Liability Elon Musk May Avoid Through His Government Takeover

In the last three months, the world’s richest man has been given unprecedented control over the federal government—an unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable Special Government Employee with the ability to use unfettered power to further his interests as he sees fit. Elon Musk—the founder and effective head of Tesla, xAI (including X), The Boring Company, SpaceX, and Neuralink—was put in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. Following the precedent set by President Trump, Mr. Musk did nothing to separate or distance himself from his immense private business empire ahead of his public work. But it is not just Mr. Musk’s enormous personal wealth that poses a concern. The nature of Mr. Musk’s businesses, as well as their substantial earnings from government contracts, mean that he is deeply entangled in the regulatory functions of the government he is now empowered to shape. President Trump could not have chosen a person more prone to conflicts of interest.

Since his appointment, Mr. Musk has taken a chainsaw to the federal government with no apparent regard for the law or for the people who depend on the programs and agencies he so blithely destroys. Mr. Musk has systematically infiltrated the government with an army of disciples and former business partners—giving them oversight of key functions and demanding that they fire seasoned public servants, nearly a third of whom are men and women who served honorably in uniform.1 This chaos has unsurprisingly resulted in numerous critical errors that the Trump Administration has already tried to walk back—from “accidentally” canceling aid for Ebola prevention, to firing and then trying to hastily rehire scientists responsible for maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons and monitoring the safety of infant formula production.2 And with sweeping access to America’s confidential and sensitive data, Mr. Musk and his companies stand to gain a competitive advantage unrivaled by the worst insider trading.

The through line connecting many of Mr. Musk’s decisions appears to be self-enrichment and avoiding what he perceives as obstacles to advancing his interests. Mr. Musk’s position may allow him to evade oversight, derail investigations, and make litigation disappear whenever he so chooses—on his terms and at his command. Even before President Trump’s inauguration, Mr. Musk succeeded in pressuring the head of the Federal Aviation Administration—who had the temerity to clash with him—to step down.3 Since then, the Administration has attempted to eliminate one of his company’s key regulators, remove decision-makers at another, and install ideologues throughout the government.4

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (“PSI” or the “Subcommittee”)—the chief investigative committee of the United States Senate—sought to understand the financial impact of President Trump’s delegation of power on potential liabilities and scrutiny facing Mr. Musk and his companies. As a first step, the Subcommittee attempted to quantify the legal exposure presented by federal investigations, litigation, or other regulatory actions on or around January 20, 2025. The goal of this analysis is to estimate the financial liability that Mr. Musk and his companies may stand to avoid through his efforts to gut the federal workforce and exert influence over federal agencies. This analysis reveals for the first time the vast risk Mr. Musk and his companies previously faced and may yet avoid as a result of his newfound influence. The Subcommittee’s key findings are as follows:

• As of January 20, 2025, Mr. Musk and his companies were subject to at least 65 actual or potential actions by 11 different federal agencies. Many other agencies have regulatory responsibilities related to Mr. Musk’s companies but had no publicly known active matters in January 2025.5

• The Subcommittee was able to estimate potential financial liabilities for 40 of the 65 actions by eight federal agencies involving Mr. Musk and his companies. The Subcommittee’s research found, for the first time, that Mr. Musk and his companies faced at least $2.37 billion in potential liability as of January 2025, including:

o Up to $1.59 million in civil and criminal penalties for Neuralink’s alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act while performing experiments on monkeys and pigs;

o $1.19 billion in potential liability as a result of Tesla’s allegedly false or misleading statements about its autopilot and full self-driving features;

o $633,009 in fines from SpaceX’s multiple failures to follow rocket launch requirements in 2023;

o A total of $713,114 in fines from 29 citations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) against SpaceX, Tesla, and The Boring Company;6

o $281 million in potential liability from Neuralink’s alleged false or misleading statements about its product risks, and many more.

• These findings do not include estimated liability for at least 25 other federal investigations or regulatory matters by three additional agencies that the Subcommittee was not able to quantify, including:

o Actions brought by the National Labor Relations Board for alleged unlawful retaliation by SpaceX and unlawful interference with a union organizing campaign by Tesla; and

o Multiple investigations with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ranging from unexpected braking or acceleration, to steering wheel detachment, to crash reports involving Tesla’s autonomous driving technology.

While the $2.37 billion figure represents a credible, conservative estimate, it drastically understates the true benefit Mr. Musk may gain from legal risk avoidance alone as a result of his position in government. In addition to the 25 pending matters the Subcommittee has not yet been able to quantify, Mr. Musk and his companies could gain millions or even billions more simply by avoiding the time, legal fees, and risk of being ordered to undertake remediation efforts or change labor practices. This figure also does not include the many billions of dollars that Mr. Musk and his companies could gain in other ways, including through new contracts they may secure or the competitive advantage they may gain by collecting intelligence on competitors.

The truth is that the breathtaking scope and scale of benefits Mr. Musk is gaining from his present position may never be known, and that is by design. The silence is strategic, and it is dangerous. PSI has released this report summarizing issues meriting investigation as the basis for questions we are asking the Musk companies to answer in letters to them. This initial report sets forth the ways Mr. Musk’s entanglements are enriching him and endangering the American people.

Background

Elon Musk and His Companies

Elon Musk holds a controlling interest or majority stake in five major companies, four of which he founded: Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) (and its subsidiary Starlink), Tesla Inc.,7 Neuralink Corp. (“Neuralink”), The Boring Company, and xAI Corp. (“xAI”), which includes recently-acquired social media company X Corp. (“X”).8 These companies impact a wide-ranging cross-section of the American economy, including space exploration, rocket and satellite deployment, broadband internet access, electric vehicles, energy generation and storage, medical devices, tunnel and infrastructure projects, social media, peer-to-peer payments (through a new platform on X called X Money), and artificial intelligence.

Like any other business in the United States, these companies are subject to laws and regulations that protect consumers, the environment, and the workplace. But their sensitive or potentially dangerous activities and products mean that Mr. Musk’s businesses face legal requirements most do not. The government is supposed to ensure, for example, that the rockets Americans launch into space are safe, the cars Americans drive are reliable, the medical devices Americans use are effective, the transportation infrastructure Americans rely on is dependable, the payments Americans send are secure, and the financial markets through which Americans invest are fair.9 Mr. Musk’s businesses are also subject to additional regulation because the U.S. government is one of his largest clients.10 His companies have received over $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits going back more than 20 years, and currently hold government contracts worth more than $10 billion.11

The Subcommittee’s review included reporting on and documents from agencies that have regulatory responsibility related to Mr. Musk and his companies but did not appear to be actively investigating or engaged in other enforcement efforts against them in January 2025. These reports generally concerned past enforcement actions that had been resolved prior to January 20, 2025, and were thus outside the scope of this report. Nevertheless, a summary of some of these findings will help to provide a more complete picture of his companies’ broad regulatory entanglements. These include:

• The Department of Defense (DOD) oversees many of SpaceX’s contracts, but it is also responsible for vetting and approving security clearances—a process for determining whether an individual is eligible to access classified national security information—for Mr. Musk and his employees.12 DOD’s Office of the Inspector General, the Air Force, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, as of late last year, separately initiated reviews over concerning reporting practices.13

• One of NASA’s largest contractors is SpaceX. Mr. Musk has advocated for ending support for the International Space Station so that NASA can turn its attention toward more missions to Mars—presumably on one of SpaceX’s proprietary spacecraft.14

• The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has evaluated SpaceX’s operations at its Boca Chica site due to the proximity to important migratory bird habitats and the endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle breeding grounds, expressing concerns to SpaceX in May 2023 about new hazards to shorebirds created by the company’s hovercraft transport.15 The previous year, FWS completed their assessment of the same site for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license, further outlining the scope of their enforcement authority.16

• The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under the Department of Transportation regularly handles special transportation permits for SpaceX and Tesla, but in 2024, fined Neuralink $2,480 for failing to register as a transporter of hazardous material and for improperly packaging hazardous waste.17

• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has received nearly 300 consumer complaints related to Tesla’s products and services in the last three years alleging a variety of unfair or possibly unlawful activities, including undisclosed fees, high-pressure sales tactics, and repossessions.18 While none of these complaints appear to have resulted in enforcement actions, lending and leasing practices—the subject of nearly two-thirds of the 300 complaints against Tesla—have in recent years led to tens of millions of dollars in CFPB penalties for other car manufacturers.19

Mr. Musk’s Conflicts of Interest

In 2024, Mr. Musk contributed over a quarter of a billion dollars to support President Trump and Republicans’ election efforts.20 Immediately upon assuming office, President Trump signed an Executive Order creating DOGE and tasked Musk to lead the initiative.21 DOGE is not a federal department authorized by any act of Congress, but has played a role in the Trump Administration’s firing of tens of thousands of federal employees, canceling thousands of grants and contracts, dismantling federal agencies established by Congress, and accessing millions of Americans’ sensitive personal data, likely including tax, Social Security, healthcare, employment, and other personally identifiable information.22 Mr. Musk’s actions since January 20, 2025 are at odds with the Office of Government Ethics Standards of Conduct, which apply to “every employee” and raise serious concerns about his compliance with federal conflicts of interest and financial disclosure laws.23

Relevant Laws

Congress has enacted a series of laws to ensure that officials who serve in the federal government are not influenced by their personal or financial interests.24 Despite the breadth and depth of Mr. Musk’s power and influence, the Trump Administration maintains that Mr. Musk is merely a “Senior Advisor to the President.”25 The Administration represented in federal court that, in that role:

Mr. Musk has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors. Like other senior White House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.26

As a Special Government Employee (SGE), Mr. Musk may only serve for a maximum of 130 days in a 365 day period.27 Generally, SGEs who have an active role in policy making are expected to file either a confidential or public financial disclosure.28 SGEs filing confidential disclosure reports may only be exempted from submitting a financial disclosure report if their duties make it a “remote” possibility that the SGE “will be involved in a real or apparent conflict of interest.”29

Mr. Musk, as an SGE, is subject to both federal conflicts of interest and financial disclosure laws.30 Federal law prohibits government employees—including SGEs—from “personally and substantially” participating in official matters where they or specific individuals and entities close to them have a financial interest.31 An employee’s participation is “personal” if their participation includes “direct and active supervision” in a matter and “substantial” when their “involvement is of significance to the matter.”32 Under the law, waivers are permitted but can only be granted if the “financial interests [] are too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the services of the employees.”33 Since being reelected, President Trump has yet to issue an ethics Executive Order, as he did in 2017, and as his predecessors have done.34

There is no indication that Mr. Musk has filed a financial disclosure form as required by law, made any attempts to remedy his conflicts of interest through recusal or the divestiture of assets, or received a waiver from the White House. Instead, the Trump Administration has left it up to Mr. Musk to determine whether he has conflicts of interest.35 On February 3, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, referencing comments by President Trump, said, “if Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, then Elon will excuse himself from those contracts, and he has again abided by all applicable laws.”36 One week after Ms. Leavitt’s statement, President Trump fired the Senate-confirmed Director of Office of Government Ethics—the office tasked with providing advice and education on federal conflicts of interest and financial disclosure laws.37

At the helm of DOGE, Mr. Musk arguably wields more power over the federal government than any Senate-confirmed cabinet level official.38 DOGE, which has not disclosed all of its staff or the source of the funds being used to pay them, is run out of the Executive Office of the President.39 Numerous lawsuits are currently challenging the constitutionality and legality of Musk and DOGE’s actions.40 As one federal judge described, Mr. Musk “is essentially a private citizen directing an organization that’s not a federal agency to have access to the entire workings of the federal government to hire, fire, slash, contract, terminate programs, all without any congressional oversight.”41

Despite numerous requests from members of Congress, the Trump Administration has failed to provide any relevant documents or information, the authorities relied upon for these actions, or an explanation of how Mr. Musk is navigating the conflicts they inherently pose.42 The Subcommittee has also requested related information from Mr. Musk’s companies about their relationships with DOGE and handling of these conflicts, and has yet to receive a satisfactory response from any of Mr. Musk’s companies.43

Agency Influence

The Subcommittee’s research indicates that Mr. Musk’s companies were recently or are currently being investigated by at least 11 federal agencies for potential violations of federal law or regulations. As discussed above, additional agencies have regulatory or other oversight responsibilities related to his companies.44 Despite these extensive entanglements with numerous federal agencies, it appears that Mr. Musk, through his leadership at DOGE, has directed or been involved in funding and staffing decisions at many of those agencies. Neither the Trump Administration nor Mr. Musk has explained these glaring conflicts of interest.

Prior to joining the Trump Administration, Mr. Musk made his position on federal regulation of his companies clear. In September 2024, after the FAA proposed fines on SpaceX for failing to follow licensing requirements in 2023, Mr. Musk publicly criticized the FAA—a regulator of SpaceX—posting on X, “SpaceX will be filing suit against the FAA for regulatory overreach” and “[t]he fundamental problem is that humanity will forever be confined to Earth unless there is radical reform at the FAA!”45 In October 2024, Mr. Musk publicly criticized the FDA—a key regulator of Neuralink—and urged the agency to grant his Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) devices expedited approvals to conduct trials, saying “Overregulation kills people[. S]imply expediting drug approvals at the F.D.A. [] will save millions of lives.”46 In November 2024, shortly after President Trump was elected, Mr. Musk publicly criticized the CFPB—a regulator of his subsequently announced X Money payment platform—writing in a post on X, “Delete CFPB. There are too many duplicative regulatory agencies.”47 On January 14, 2025, after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—a regulator of X—filed a lawsuit against Mr. Musk alleging violations of securities laws, Mr. Musk posted on X, “Totally broken organization. They spend their time on shit like this when there are so many actual crimes that go unpunished.”48

Since President Trump took office, he has weakened the federal entities that oversee, regulate, and (in some cases) have active investigations into Mr. Musk’s companies. Just days into his second term in office, President Trump fired 19 inspectors general.49 At least two of these fired officials—the inspectors general for the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture—oversaw offices with active investigations involving Mr. Musk’s companies.50 These early firings began a pattern of dismissal or closure of investigations into Mr. Musk’s companies that shows no signs of letting up.51

At times, DOGE and Mr. Musk himself appear to be leading the meddling into agencies where he and his companies face ongoing or potential investigations. At the CFPB, which has oversight and enforcement authority over Tesla’s auto lending and the recently-announced “X Money” platform, Mr. Musk appears to have been directly involved in the agency’s recent dismantling: He reportedly accessed CFPB’s headquarters and computer systems, and several hours later posted “CFPB RIP” with an emoji of a gravestone on his X account; CFPB’s official account on the Musk-owned platform was subsequently deleted.52 At the SEC, which has at least one current investigation into Musk and potentially several others, DOGE has overseen layoffs and the closure of regional headquarters that observers say are likely to weaken the Commission’s abilities to carry out enforcement actions.53 DOGE employees have also reportedly been granted access to confidential Commission data.54 In late February, DOGE staff arrived at the FAA’s Washington D.C. headquarters and reportedly told employees hesitant to adopt changes to the Agency’s telecommunications systems that they would be reported to Mr. Musk.55 In March, Catherine Eshbach, who previously represented SpaceX as an attorney in private practice, was appointed as Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), a division of the Department of Labor (DOL) tasked with ensuring that federal contractors, including Mr. Musk’s companies, comply with nondiscrimination laws.56 In an email introducing herself to staff, Eschbach told employees to expect a “reduced scope of mission” and reductions-in- force “consistent with the administration-wide DOGE agenda.”57

Mr. Musk’s repeated abuse of his influence over agencies with regulatory oversight of his companies underscores the need for careful examination of federal investigations and litigation involving these entities. The subsequent sections of this report will detail the Subcommittee’s review of these actions to better understand the potential financial exposure they face and the benefits they stand to gain from weakened or preferential enforcement.

Exposure from Federal Government Investigations and Litigation

Following reports about Mr. Musk’s attempts to gut federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities over his companies, PSI sought to understand the full scope of federal oversight that Mr. Musk faced before President Trump took office in order to discern the extent to which he and his companies may stand to immediately benefit. PSI determined that at least 40 specific cases—including litigation, investigations, and enforcement actions—pending against Mr. Musk and five of his companies across eight federal agencies as of January 20, 2025, reflected potential liabilities of over $2.37 billion in potential exposure to criminal fines and civil penalties (see Figure 1). PSI was not able to reasonably calculate the potential cost of an additional 25 potential regulatory actions—including employee complaints, audits, and auto recalls—by three other agencies that existed at the time. An appendix is attached to provide a detailed list of the cases summarized here. The sections that follow detail the Subcommittee’s findings.


Figure 1: Summary of Potential Exposure by Investigations and Litigation


Figure 2: Summary of Matters Not Reasonably Estimated

Potential Costs of Investigations and Litigation

Methodology

To assess Mr. Musk and his companies’ potential financial exposure to costs associated with federal investigations, enforcement actions, and other complaints, the Subcommittee conducted a comprehensive review of publicly available information on ongoing, potential, and pending federal enforcement actions and investigations against Mr. Musk or his companies. The Subcommittee used publicly available information to compile a list of actions that are either reported to still be active—or otherwise not confirmed to have been closed—in or around January 2025.58 The Subcommittee identified publicly reported active investigations, enforcement actions, complaints or other related matters against Mr. Musk in his personal capacity as well as each of the following companies that he has a controlling interest or majority stake in: Neuralink, SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company, and xAI (which includes X as of March 28, 2025).59

After identifying these publicly reported investigations, enforcement actions, and other matters, the Subcommittee ascertained which statutes and regulations they may implicate to determine the potential range of penalties, fines, fees, or other financial exposure. The Subcommittee then calculated the estimated potential financial exposure for each potential statutory or regulatory violation by analyzing publicly available information about each matter. The Subcommittee’s findings below describe the process used to determine each estimate. For certain matters where statutes or regulations did not provide clear guidance on the potential exposure, or where necessary facts were not available, the Subcommittee concluded that no estimate could be determined.

The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the scope of yet another conflict of interest from Mr. Musk’s multiple roles: the potential financial risk Mr. Musk and his companies faced from open federal investigations at the time President Trump took office. This figure sheds light on the potential rewards Mr. Musk’s companies may now gain from the absence of federal enforcement capacity as a result of cuts made by DOGE, or influence exerted on enforcement agencies by Mr. Musk or those acting on his behalf.

The Subcommittee’s analysis is not meant to evaluate the likely outcome of any individual investigation, enforcement action, or complaint, nor does it consider factors such as evidentiary shortcomings, prosecutorial discretion, or legal constraints that may have otherwise impacted the outcome of these matters. As further discussed below in The Hidden Costs of Federal Enforcement, it also does not account for additional types of costs and damages not reasonably subject to measurement, such as legal fees, compensatory damages, stock price declines, and other factors.60 Therefore, although the analysis is designed to measure potential financial exposure, the total amount calculated is likely far less than the full exposure risk Mr. Musk and his companies faced before President Trump took office. Key facts about certain cases were not available in order to enable the Subcommittee to make estimates, and many factors related to potential enforcement risk are not reasonably subject to measurement.

Department of Justice (DOJ)

SpaceX’s Discriminatory Hiring Practices against Asylees and Refugees

Alleged Facts:

On August 24, 2023, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint with the Executive Office for Immigration Review alleging that Mr. Musk and SpaceX engaged in a yearslong campaign to intentionally discriminate against asylees and refugees in hiring.61 Specifically, from 2018 to 2022, the company allegedly actively discouraged, failed to consider, and refused to hire qualified applicants based on their citizenship status.62 According to the complaint, SpaceX banned asylees and refugees from working at the company—publicly stating that it believed export control laws and regulations barred it from doing so despite there being no such restrictions and the fact that the company regularly conducted export compliance assessments.63

On February 21, 2025, DOJ dropped the case against Mr. Musk and SpaceX by filing a notice of dismissal, which was granted with prejudice on February 24, 2025. 64

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, companies are barred from “discriminat[ing] against any individual [] other than an unauthorized alien” with respect to hiring, recruiting for a fee, or discharge on the basis of his or her national origin or citizenship status.65 Civil monetary penalties are set based on the level at the date the penalty is assessed, not the date the violation occurred.66 Because the alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act—along with all other conduct leading to potential liability addressed in this report—occurred after the date of those amendments, the most current figure for civil monetary penalties, where available, is appropriate.67 After February 12, 2024, unfair immigration-related practices committed by first-time offenders of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b carry a maximum civil penalty of $4,610 per individual discriminated against.68

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages (prior to dismissal) Based on Available Facts:

Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, the public may never know the full extent of the discrimination. DOJ’s complaint stated that SpaceX hired more than 10,000 employees during this period.69 Each of these hirings could constitute a violation based on the allegation of universal discrimination in the company’s hiring practices.70 Using the 2024 civil monetary penalty rate of $4,610, PSI estimated SpaceX’s maximum monetary exposure had it been found liable for all 10,000 violations.71 As such, the company may have avoided civil monetary penalties of up to $46,100,000 through DOJ’s February 2025 dismissal.

Tesla’s Allegedly False or Misleading Statements about Autopilot and Full-Self Driving (FSD) Features

Alleged Facts:

In or about 2021, DOJ launched a criminal investigation into Tesla related to potentially false or misleading claims about its Autopilot and Full-Self Driving (FSD) made by Mr. Musk and Tesla since as early as 2016.72 Tesla’s annual SEC filings for fiscal year 2022 reported that the company had “received requests from the DOJ for documents related to Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD features.”73 Tesla’s FY 2023 and 2024 10-Ks contained a similar statement about complying with DOJ requests more broadly, and public reporting in May 2024 indicated that DOJ’s investigation into Mr. Musk and his company’s alleged overstatements about the capability of Tesla’s technology and resulting risks to both drivers and investors was ongoing at that time.74

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

Tesla’s alleged conduct implicates a number of federal criminal statutes, including those prohibiting wire fraud and securities fraud.75 Violators of these statutes can face up to $500,000 in criminal fines or “twice the gross gain” associated with the offense, whichever is greater.76 As a result of DOJ’s investigation, Tesla, and potentially Mr. Musk, could face criminal charges, fines, and civil penalties.

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

Estimating the precise amount of potential gain from Tesla’s alleged misstatements since 2016 is a highly complex task that would likely require internal information regarding Tesla’s revenue related to its Autopilot and FSD throughout the time period in question. However, Tesla did not publicly report FSD-specific revenue until fiscal year 2024, when it reported $596 million in FSD revenue.77 The lack of publicly available information makes it difficult to estimate FSD revenue in any year prior to 2024, or the extent to which any such revenue is attributable to any false or misleading statements. Industry estimates for FSD adoption rates indicate that Tesla consumers’ adoption of FSD technology has been declining in recent years.78 The adoption rate of 53 percent in 2019 went down to seven percent in 2021, and approximately two percent in 2024.79

Although Tesla’s alleged conduct may go back as far as 2016, without information about FSDrelated revenue from earlier years, the Subcommittee used Tesla’s reported 2024 revenue of $596 million to estimate FSD-related gain. Doubling this amount, as provided in 18 U.S.C § 3571(d), would result in a criminal fine of $1,192,000,000.

There is ample precedent for criminal fines of this magnitude against car manufacturers. In 2014, DOJ charged Toyota Motor Corporation with one count of wire fraud and entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in which Toyota agreed to pay $1.2 billion and admitted it “misled U.S. consumers by concealing and making deceptive statements about two safety issues affecting its vehicles.”80

For both DOJ matters that were ongoing as of January 2025, Mr. Musk’s companies’ maximum potential estimated exposure stood at $1,228,950,000, until the SpaceX matter was dismissed shortly after President Trump took office.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Reported Violations of the Clean Water Act at Tesla’s Austin Facility

Alleged Facts:

In 2024, a whistleblower at Tesla’s Austin facility wrote a memorandum to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alleging that the company “repeatedly asked [the individual] to lie to the government so that they could operate without paying for proper environmental controls[.]”81 In the memorandum filed with the EPA, the whistleblower also included “hundreds of pages of state regulatory documents, as well as photos and videos” related to Tesla’s alleged environmental violations, including dumping thousands of gallons of polluted wastewater into city sewer systems in June 2024.82 Reporting indicated that these actions followed a series of similar incidents going back to 2022 and that the EPA’s criminal enforcement division opened a preliminary inquiry into the whistleblower’s allegations in November 2024.83 The EPA’s website did not indicate whether any enforcement action at the Austin facility had taken place as of the date of this report.84

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

The whistleblower’s allegations implicate the Clean Water Act based on the alleged discharge of hazardous wastewater.85 The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters, giving the EPA the ability to establish pollution control programs like wastewater standards.86 Section 307(b) of the Act, in part, requires the EPA to set regulatory standards for pretreating wastewater introduced into sewage collection systems.87 The EPA is authorized to “commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction,” as well as a maximum civil penalty of $68,445 per day for each violation.88 Additionally, knowing violations of these pretreatment standards may result in criminal fines of up to $50,000 per day.89

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

The limited public reporting makes it difficult to determine the number and duration of potential violations of the EPA’s pretreatment standards, making the calculation of penalties and fines difficult. Assuming Tesla’s alleged violation in June 2024 was done knowingly—as suggested by the report of multiple citations concerning the same issues and multiple attempts to influence regulators to downplay the violations’ severity90—and represented only one violation on one day, Tesla could face at least $68,445 in civil penalties and $50,000 in criminal fines, totaling $118,445.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Reported Severe or Pervasive Racial Harassment and Retaliation at Tesla’s Fremont Facility

Alleged Facts:

In September 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Tesla seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as back pay for employees who allegedly faced years of “severe or pervasive racial harassment” and retaliation at the company’s Fremont facility.91 The complaint—which followed attempts to resolve the matter administratively—alleges that since at least May 2015, Black Tesla employees were subjected to frequent, repeated racial slurs and stereotyping from coworkers, including managers, and were forced to work in locations covered in racist graffiti including displays of swastikas, nooses, support for the KKK, and death threats.92 The complaint alleged that Tesla management not only failed to investigate or intercede despite their knowledge of these activities, but also retaliated against and fired employees who reported, or simply complained aloud about, these working conditions.93

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

The practices alleged in EEOC’s complaint violate Sections 703(a) and Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.94 Section 703(a) forbids employers from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his [or her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” including engaging in racial harassment so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment.95 Section 704(a) of the Act further forbids retaliation against employees or applicants for opposing workplace discrimination.96 The EEOC may impose injunctive relief, award back pay with interest, front pay, and any other equitable relief, as well as assess compensatory and punitive damages, all of which the Commission sought in its complaint.97 Such damages for a company the size of Tesla could include up to $300,000 in punitive damages per complaining party and compensatory damages for “future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.”98 Back pay and interest is only available up to two years prior to the date of the EEOC charge.99 The Civil Rights Act provides that punitive damages are available when employers act “with malice or with reckless indifference.”100

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

According to a March 2024 federal court opinion denying Tesla’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint, “the aggrieved persons include all Black employees who were employed at [Tesla’s] Fremont, CA facilities at any time since May 29, 2015, to the present, who have been adversely affected by such unlawful employment practices.”101 The complaint and subsequent court filings do not specify the number of workers who suffered harm as a result of the conditions described. However, in 2024, current and former Black employees alleging substantially similar claims of “pervasive race harassment at the [Tesla Fremont] factory” sought class certification for a California civil suit originally filed in 2017.102 According to Tesla, the EEOC’s finding also “closely parallels” a February 2022 civil complaint filed by the California Civil Rights Division, formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, against Tesla “alleging systemic race discrimination, hostile work environment and pay equity claims,” among other allegations.103 The plaintiffs in the civil suit “submitted declarations of over 500 Tesla workers who experienced or observed what could be described as race harassment” and proposed a class size of 5,977 people.104 The judge who certified the class in this civil action cited a declaration from a Tesla human resources official to conclude that “there were approximately 1,540 Tesla workers between 2016 and 2022 who identified as Black or African American.”105 The Subcommittee therefore used 1,540 as the number of employees affected by the conduct alleged in the EEOC’s complaint. Applying the statutory $300,000 penalty to the figure of 1,540 Black employees derived from the declaration of a Tesla human resources official—rather than the nearly 6,000 proposed by the Black workers pursuing litigation—indicates that the manufacturer could be liable for up to $462,000,000 for violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The EEOC’s complaint also sought back pay, compensation for employees’ pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, and injunctive relief.106 Given the difficulty of estimating the costs of instituting policy and practice changes at Tesla, as well as compensatory damages and back pay for hundreds if not thousands of employees working in different roles and paid at different rates, the Subcommittee was not able to calculate the potential cost of these types of damages. As a result, the estimated statutory ceiling of $462,000,000 in punitive damages is a reasonable, even conservative, means of assessing Tesla’s potential liability for its alleged conduct.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

SpaceX’s Multiple Reported Failures to Follow License Requirements in 2023 Launches

Alleged Facts:

In September 2024, the FAA proposed multiple penalties totaling $633,009 against SpaceX for violations of its licensing requirements during two rocket launches in June and July 2023.107 The FAA alleged deviations from established safety protocols (specifically the use of an unauthorized launch control facility), failure to perform the pre-launch readiness assessment (“T-2 hour poll”), and use of an unapproved rocket propellant.108

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

Commercial space launch activities are covered by 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509.109 Pursuant to 51 U.S.C. § 50917(c), the FAA may impose civil penalties per violation as well as a separate violation for each day the violation continues.110

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

The FAA has already assessed the penalty for SpaceX’s licensing and safety protocol violations, proposing fines against SpaceX of $633,009 in 2024.

However, SpaceX may indeed avoid this liability. After the proposed penalties were announced, SpaceX sent a letter to Congress denying any wrongdoing and criticizing the FAA.111 Mr. Musk wrote on X that the company would sue to challenge the fines and repeatedly called for the FAA Administrator to resign, even though his term did not end until 2028.112

Former FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker did so on the day of President Trump’s inauguration.113 As of the date of this report, the FAA has not publicly released any updates on the matter, including on its electronic “reading room” website where the penalty proposals are maintained.114

[admin]

Part 2 of 3

Federal Election Commission (FEC)

Alleged Illegal Corporate Contributions for Virtual Campaign Rally on X Spaces

Alleged Facts:

On August 12, 2024, X held a virtual campaign rally for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump hosted by Mr. Musk during which, for over an hour, Mr. Musk repeatedly endorsed Mr. Trump for president and advocated against Vice President Kamala Harris.115 The following day, a political action committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) alleging that the rally—and the resources expended to broadcast and moderate it—constituted a considerable and unlawful corporate in-kind contribution to Donald Trump’s election campaign.116 By law, all FEC enforcement cases are confidential until they are closed.117 Because the FEC has not to date published the complaint’s disposition to either its Enforcement Search System or as part of its “Weekly Digests,” the case is likely still open.118

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

Federal campaign finance law prohibits contributions and expenditures by corporations “in connection with any” federal election, defining contributions and expenditures such as “anything of value made [] for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”119 For contributions offered free of charge or at a discount (“in-kind contribution”), the value is “the amount that would have been paid under the prevailing commercial rate at the time the services are rendered.”120 Corporations that have made prohibited contributions face civil penalties up to $5,000 or an amount equal to the contribution, but if the violation was knowing and willful, the penalties increase to $10,000 or an amount equal to 200 percent of the contribution, whichever is greater.121

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

Given the difficulty of estimating the value of Mr. Musk’s potential contribution, which would require estimating the value of his time and resources provided by X, the statutory amount of $5,000 appears to be the most reasonable estimate of X’s likely financial exposure for allegedly violating federal campaign finance law.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

SpaceX’s Serious Medical Referrals at the Washington Facility

Alleged Facts:

A 2023 investigation by Reuters of SpaceX injury data documented a history of “serious or disabling” workplace injuries dating back to 2016 across its multiple facilities, including “crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death.”122 In November 2024, OSHA filed two complaints against SpaceX’s Washington Facility, which resulted in $18,000 in fines, which SpaceX has yet to pay.123 On January 21, 2025, one proceeding resulted in two citations totaling $12,000 in fines for failing to follow labor laws requiring certain emergency response plans and employee training.124 On February 13, 2025, the second proceeding resulted in a $6,000 citation for multiple violations arising from the company’s failure to conduct exposure evaluations, keep food free from toxic substances, and keep surfaces free from lead accumulation.125

The Boring Company’s Contested Violation at Las Vegas Site, Fines Exceeding $112k

Alleged Facts:

In June 2023, OSHA opened an investigation into The Boring Company’s Las Vegas site and concluded that more than a dozen employees were forced to work in tunnels described as being “packed with chemical sludge” without proper protective equipment.126 On October 31, 2023, OSHA issued fines for eight violations at $14,063 per violation, totaling $112,504.127

Tesla’s 26 Contested OSHA Violations at Multiple Facilities, Fines Exceeding $500k

Alleged Facts:

Tesla currently faces 26 ongoing OSHA proceedings, the oldest of which dates back to 2020.128 These proceedings have resulted in citations and fines on a range of issues related to serious, and sometimes repeated, workplace injuries. In one instance, on January 31, 2025, OSHA cited and fined Tesla $49,650 for the electrocution death of an employee conducting an inspection at its Austin facility—a potentially preventable death caused by the company’s failure to ensure the worker was wearing protective equipment and that equipment at the inspection site had been deenergized.

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

The Occupational Safety and Health Act provides for a wide range of penalties for workplace safety and health violations based on factors such as “the knowledge and intent of the employer, the seriousness of the violation, and the employer's compliance history, which may impact the ultimate amount of the penalty.”130 OSHA investigates and enforces violations of the Act and is authorized to issue fines for violations of the Act.131 The final penalty amount will fall within a specified range based on individualized assessments performed by OSHA on each violation.132

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

Twenty-eight of 29 open investigations conducted by OSHA at SpaceX, Tesla, and The Boring Company are recorded as “contested” by the respective companies.133 All 29 investigations remain open on OSHA’s public webpage as of the date of this report.134 To date:

• SpaceX had two open cases with fines totaling $18,000;

• The Boring Company had one open case with fines totaling $112,504; and

• Tesla had 26 open cases with fines totaling $582,610.

The total potential fines and penalties previously assessed by OSHA across these three companies is $713,114.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Allegations of Mr. Musk’s Failure to Timely Disclose Beneficial Ownership Report

Alleged Facts:

On January 14, 2025, the SEC brought a complaint against Mr. Musk alleging that he had netted over $150 million by failing to publicly disclose his acquisition of more than five percent beneficial ownership of the common stock of Twitter, Inc. (now X) in March 2022.135 By delaying this report, Mr. Musk was allegedly able to purchase a significant amount of Twitter stock at a discounted price—once Mr. Musk finally disclosed his acquisitions publicly, the price of Twitter stock rose substantially. Ultimately, these purchases—actions which “resulted in substantial economic harm to investors” by depriving them of “material information”136—gave Mr. Musk the leverage to purchase the company later that year.137

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

The SEC charged Mr. Musk with violating Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which requires persons who acquire beneficial ownership of more than five percent of a public company’s equity securities to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC within ten days of crossing the five-percent threshold.138 The maximum civil penalty for violating Section 13(d) is $11,823 per violation, disgorgement, and any equitable relief that may be deemed appropriate.139 The amount of the penalty may be increased under the Act based on aggravating factors, such as “fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement” and “substantial losses [] to other persons.”140

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

The estimated disgorgement value of $150 million is based on the amount alleged by the SEC. For one violation, the additional civil penalty of $11,823 results in maximum potential damages of $150,011,823.141

Neuralink’s Alleged False or Misleading Statement about Product Risks

Alleged Facts:

In or around September 2023, the SEC opened an investigation into Neuralink’s business practices following a complaint from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) alleging that Mr. Musk knowingly made false or misleading statements about the safety of the company’s product.142 During a critical fundraising period for Neuralink, when it raised $280,274,981 from investors, Mr. Musk allegedly made false statements regarding animal testing outcomes, including in a social media post made on September 10, 2023.143 On December 12, 2024, Neuralink’s counsel indicated the SEC “reopened an investigation into Neuralink,” and raised the prospect that the decision was “improperly motivated.”144 It is unclear whether the SEC’s investigation into Neuralink remains active.

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

If the SEC’s investigation remains active, it appears based on public reporting that Neuralink’s alleged conduct may implicate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933. Section 10(b) makes it unlawful to “use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention” of SEC rules.145 Section 17(a)(2) makes it unlawful to, “in the offer or sale of any securities [] by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly [] obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission[.]”146 Section 17(a)(3) further makes it unlawful to “engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser” under the same conditions.147 The Securities Act permits the SEC to seek disgorgement and “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors,” levying civil penalties of up to $1,182,251 per violation when such violations “resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.”148

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

The potential maximum penalty Neuralink could face is disgorgement of the funding raised in 2023 ($280,274,981) and civil penalties of $1,182,251 for a single violation, totaling $281,457,232.

Tesla’s Alleged Failure to Disclose Solar Panel Risks to Shareholders

Alleged Facts:

In 2021, Tesla was reported to be subject to an ongoing SEC investigation stemming from a whistleblower claim filed in 2019 alleging that the company failed to disclose fire risks related to its solar panel systems—a failure that may have exposed shareholders to substantial undisclosed liabilities over multiple years.149

Although more than three years passed between the first reporting of the SEC’s investigation and January 20, 2025, the absence of statements from the SEC does not indicate that the case has been closed.150 While it is not uncommon for SEC investigations to take many years, the SEC’s practice is not to publicly report when an investigation that does not result in charges is closed.151 A related civil suit filed by the same whistleblower in California state court in November 2020 remains active as of April 2025.152

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

Tesla’s alleged conduct appears to implicate the same provisions of the Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act as the allegations regarding Neuralink, with the addition of the reporting requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act, which requires companies with registered securities to file complete and accurate periodic reports with the SEC.153

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

Tesla may face disgorgement of the portion of its profits from solar panel systems attributable to any false claims. In terms of timing, it has been reported that in 2016, mere months before Tesla acquired SolarCity (a company which sold solar energy generation systems), a whistleblower told Tesla management that they needed to “shut down the fire-prone solar systems, report to safety regulators and notify consumers.” 154 This could mean that disgorgement could go as far back as 2017.

Table 1: Tesla's energy generation and storage segment revenue (Dollars in millions).155
Year / 2016 / 2017 / 2018 / 2019 / 2020 / 2021 / 2022 / 2023 / 2024 / Total
Revenue /
Cost of Revenue /
Profit /
Source: Tesla Form 10-K for fiscal years 2016-2024.156

Disclosing the risks identified by the whistleblower could have prevented or delayed SolarCity's acquisition or implicated portions of the $4.5 billion in profits since 2017. A conservative estimate of Mr. Musk's exposure related to this matter could include the change in profit between 2016 ($3,062,000) and 2017 ($241,728,000) in this segment, i.e., $238,666,000.157

Assuming that the case remains open, and that the company is assessed the maximum civil penalty on just one violation ($1, 182,251) and faces disgorgement on the change in profit ($238,666,000), Tesla could face financial exposure of up to $239,848,251.

For all three SEC matters, the maximum potential estimated exposure for Mr. Musk and his companies stood at $671,371,306 as of January 2025, assuming all three matters remained open at that time.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Neuralink's Alleged Violations of the Animal Welfare Act

Alleged Facts:

In or around February 2022, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) received a complaint from the PCRM claiming that its independent investigation revealed that Neuralink's surgical methods, which allegedly resulted in the painful deaths of multiple animals between 2017 and 2020, violated the Animal Welfare Act.158 Independent reporting alleged that at least four experiments involving 88 animals (86 pigs and two monkeys) were “marred [] by human errors.”159 Additional reporting found that as many as a dozen young monkeys were euthanized after experiencing gruesome side effects from having holes drilled into their skulls and electrodes implanted into their brains during experiments.160 The referral from PCRM led to a probe from the USDA OIG, which was reportedly ongoing as of January 2025.161

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

The Animal Welfare Act imposes standards for the humane treatment of animals used in scientific research and, under the Act, USDA is responsible for setting standards “to ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized.162 Effective June 7, 2024, companies violating the Act faced civil penalties of up to $14,206 per violation.163 An additional $200,000 in criminal fines may be charged if the alleged conduct is found to constitute a criminal violation of the Act.164

Estimate of Maximum Potential Damages Based on Available Facts:

Based on public reporting, Neuralink allegedly conducted inhumane experiments in violation of the Animal Welfare Act on at least 98 animals (86 pigs and 12 monkeys). The Subcommittee calculated Neuralink’s potential financial exposure based on the 98 reported violations.165 At the June 2024 rate of $14,206 per animal, Neuralink could face civil penalties of up to $1,392,188, plus an additional $200,000 in potential criminal fines for just one potential violation, for total civil and criminal penalties as high as approximately $1,592,188.

Potential Investigation and Litigation Exposure Not Reasonably Estimated

Beyond the agency and department liability detailed above, both SpaceX and Tesla face scrutiny from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). However, for the reasons described below, the Subcommittee was unable to estimate potential financial exposure related to these actions.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Complaints Related to SpaceX and Tesla

Alleged Facts Regarding SpaceX

In November 2022, former SpaceX employees filed multiple charges with the NLRB related to unlawful investigations into and firings stemming from an open letter sent by SpaceX employees to executives detailing workplace concerns.166 The eight charges were consolidated into one complaint in January 2024.167 The complaint remains in limbo pending the outcome of a separate lawsuit filed by SpaceX challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB.168

Alleged Facts Regarding Tesla

In March 2021, the NLRB found—in a consolidated complaint of eight charges filed in 2017 and 2018169—that Tesla committed multiple violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in its fight against a union organizing campaign at its Fremont facility, including one unlawful firing, multiple coercive interrogations of employees, threatening the loss of stock options if employees joined a union, and retaliating against organizers by promulgating new work rules meant to limit their ability to communicate with coworkers.170 The case is pending the outcome of multiple court challenges brought by Tesla.171

Statutes and/or Regulations at Issue:

The NLRA in pertinent part prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in collective bargaining or other concerted activities.172 It further bestows broad powers on the NLRB to prevent unfair labor practices, including but not limited to cease-and-desist orders, employee reinstatement and backpay, and any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harm resulting from the practice.173

Analysis

In the case of the multiple charges and complaints against SpaceX and Tesla that remain pending with the NLRB, the Subcommittee’s ability to calculate potential financial exposure is limited by the highly individualized factors not easily discernable at this time, such as salary, benefits, expenses related to job searches, interim employment, credit card debt, withdrawals from retirement accounts, late fees for car or mortgage payments, childcare, medical bills, and any other relief that would make the complainants whole.174 While the total potential exposure from these matters is not included in PSI’s estimate, the existence of these pending investigations and actions demonstrates that Mr. Musk’s actual financial exposure from potential federal enforcement actions is even higher than estimated.

Other Agencies with Enforcement Authority over Musk Companies

Tesla faces multiple investigations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and had faced an audit by a Department of Labor watchdog before a recent Executive Order rendered it moot. While these and other agencies may have otherwise conducted enforcement actions against Mr. Musk and his companies, his sway over the federal government may limit future action.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Since 2020, Tesla has experienced over 60 documented recalls with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration involving multiple design deficiencies with their vehicles and equipment.175 There are currently eight open investigations with the agency ranging from unexpected braking or acceleration, to steering wheel detachment, to crash reports involving Tesla’s FSD or Smart Summon technology (see Table 2).176 In the case of the FSD collision investigation, one crash involved a vehicle fatally striking a pedestrian.177 Recent reporting indicates that, in Feb1uary, DOGE staff cut 30 NHTSA workers, many of whom worked on evaluating the safety of automated driving. 178

Table 2: Tesla Vehicles under NHTSA Investigation by Make and Years
Make / Years / Investigations
CYBERTRUCK / 2023-2024 / PE2403 1; RQ24009
MODEL3 2017-2025 / DP23001; DP23002; EA24001 ; PE22002; PE24031; PE24033; RQ24009
MODEL S / 2012-2025 / DP23001; DP23002; PE24031; PE24033; RQ24009
MODEL X / 2015-2025 / DP23001; DP23002; PE24031; PE24033; RQ24009
MODELY / 2019-2025 / DP23001; DP23002; EA24001; PE22002; PE23003; PE2403 1; PE24033; RQ24009

Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls (Retrieved April 11, 2025)

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives NHTSA the authority to require manufacturers to initiate recalls of defective or substandard automobiles. 179 The decision to issue a recall is traditionally a multi-step process that involves data collection and analysis by NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI).180 ODI's methodology is sequential and riskbased. 181 ODI advances to the fmmal investigation stage when there is "sufficient evidence of a potential safety-related defect"- initiating an involuntary recall when there is evidence of the defect and, despite the "regular cadence" of data and other feedback, the manufacturer has not initiated the recall itself. 182

Recalls can be enmmously expensive for manufacturers, with multiple examples reaching into the billions in recent years. 183 The two primauy factors influencing the cost of a recall are the number of vehicles impacted, and the per-vehicle remediation cost. While the average recall fix over the past decade has been about $500 per vehicle, some, such as a recent fix to fire-prone batteries in a line ofHyundai electric cru·s, ru·e vastly higher. 184

Because there is no current indication that any of the eight open investigations will lead to a new recall, and because the costs of such a recall would depend on factors that cannot be assessed based on publicly available information, the Subcommittee cannot reasonably estimate Tesla’s potential liability from recalls ordered by NHTSA.

Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is the Department of Labor’s contractor watchdog.185 In 2024, the OFCCP listed Tesla and its facility in Fremont on its Corporate Scheduling Announcement List as “a courtesy notification to an establishment selected to undergo a compliance evaluation.”186 As discussed above, employees at Tesla’s Fremont facility have allegedly experienced severe or pervasive harassment and retaliation. On January 24, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, directing the office to “immediately cease” several actions.187 The Department of Labor subsequently ordered the OFCCP to “cease and desist all investigative enforcement activity” under the President’s Executive Order.188 The investigation into Tesla was reportedly still pending when the OFCCP’s responsibilities were drastically curtailed.189

Prior to the January 24 Executive Order, the OFCCP established rules and enforcement procedures to prevent discrimination and promote affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors by responding to complaints and conducting “proactive compliance evaluations.”190 Companies selected for an OFCCP audit face demanding and time-sensitive deadlines to compile and submit extensive data for review, with the potential that violations may be handled administratively with the OFCCP, up to and including referrals to the DOJ.191 Enforcement within the OFCCP may result in conciliation agreements between the Office and the company where violations and remedies are identified.192 Recent agreements with firms such as LinkedIn and Google documented instances of discriminatory employment practice, resulting in millions of dollars in back pay and interest as well as enhanced compliance reviews to include the filing of progress reports and, in the case of Google, establishing a dedicated cash reserve to review salary procedures over a five-year period.193

The Hidden Costs of Federal Enforcement

Mr. Musk’s myriad business interests may also benefit from avoiding direct and indirect costs associated with potential regulatory oversight that are more difficult to calculate. These costs generally fall into three categories:

• Legal and compliance costs: Costs associated with litigation, settlements, remediation, and internal adjustments to remain compliant.

• Risks to federal licenses and contracts: Costs associated with the suspension or revocation of federal permits and licenses and contract termination or debarment.

• Reputational and market impact costs: Potential losses in market value, consumer trust, and brand perception.

Legal and Compliance Costs

The federal government’s abandonment of long-term investigations into Mr. Musk’s business interests would likely save him millions of dollars in legal fees and compliance costs. Complex regulatory and criminal investigations can last for years and generally require engaging top-tier legal counsel that can cost millions of dollars annually, particularly when liability is disputed. One recent survey of 2023 litigation trends found that “employment/labor” and “regulatory/investigations” topped the list of corporate litigation, with claims of discrimination and harassment and challenges related to data privacy and AI remaining prominent concerns across industries.194 It further found that companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion spent an average of $3.9 million on litigation in 2024.195

Companies facing scrutiny may find it necessary to conduct internal investigations, hire compliance officers and subject matter experts, update policies, implement new training programs, and upgrade systems to meet existing requirements. Internal investigations and compliance audits can be particularly resource intensive for large multinational organizations ranging from several millions to tens of millions of dollars annually.196

Federal agencies may impose additional compliance monitoring obligations as part of settlement agreements or enforcement actions. In the case of a $5 billion settlement between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Facebook (now Meta) from 2019, the FTC required sweeping changes to overhaul how the company handles user data to ensure greater accountability.197 Similarly, X (then Twitter) remains under heightened scrutiny from the FTC through 2031 due to a 2011 settlement addressing deceptive acts related to user data privacy.198 In the instance of X, breaching the settlement terms could carry penalties of up to $16,000 per violation on a platform with approximately 600 million monthly active users.199

Risks to Federal Licenses and Contracts

Mr. Musk’s involvement in government may also allow him and his businesses to skirt the regulatory oversight that would ordinarily result in millions or billions of dollars of potential liability due to license suspensions, revocations, or denials. To take one example, the FAA holds the authority to suspend or revoke operating licenses for safety or environmental violations, and SpaceX faces ongoing scrutiny over its launch safety protocols.200 A suspension of its launch licenses, akin to the Boeing 737 Max grounding, could result in billions of dollars of lost revenue from delayed missions and contract terminations.201

Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing Neuralink’s medical devices, providing any special designations, and eventually permitting devices to be marketed to consumers. Human trials were approved for Neuralink’s brain-computer interface, Telepathy, following an investigational device exemption in 2023, and its experimental implant, Blindsight, was given a breakthrough device designation last year, allowing for limited human trials.202 These products remain under the FDA’s review, and FDA approval of their safety and marketing is critical for their eventual commercial viability.203

SpaceX faces unique potential liability given that the majority of its funds come from government contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense, making any debarment or contract termination in the event of an adverse finding particularly devastating.204 Mechanical failures with Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, for example, jeopardized its $4.2 billion contract with NASA.205 Similar actions against SpaceX could lead to billions in lost government revenue and future contract opportunities.

Reputational and Market Impact Costs

Avoiding regulatory scrutiny also permits Mr. Musk’s companies to evade the reputational and market costs that inevitably flow from such actions. First, civil penalties, criminal fines, or adverse findings often trigger stock price declines and can result in shareholder lawsuits. Facebook (now Meta) lost roughly $134 billion in market value after its data privacy violations became public and the FTC confirmed their investigation, leading to multiple lawsuits from shareholders who claimed the company breached their fiduciary duties.206 Given the volatility of Tesla’s stock—with trading focused more on Mr. Musk than company fundamentals—a similar decline following a high-profile enforcement action could impact the company, wiping out billions of dollars in market capitalization.207

Second, findings of liability or wrongdoing can lead to loss of public trust, negative media coverage, and consumer boycotts. In 2015, Volkswagen’s emissions scandal immediately led to a substantial drop in share price—the equivalent of $17.6 billion—and brand reputation scores, calls for boycotts, and ultimately negative, long-term impacts on public perceptions of the company.208

Third, high-profile controversies can result in attrition from executives and company talent that seek to distance themselves from corporate scandals. Uber lost key executives and top talent following a series of public scandals—including a DOJ and EEOC investigation into allegations of sexual harassment—which contributed to hiring delays and other inefficiencies.209

***

These costs, though more difficult to calculate, highlight the additional deterrents against harming the public interest that exists because of regulatory oversight. While penalties and fines serve as direct consequences for misconduct, the broader financial burdens demonstrate the real impact of enforcement actions. For individuals like Mr. Musk, who hold influential roles in government while managing a web of private business interests, these pressures underscore the importance of strong, impartial oversight to prevent conflicts of interest, ensure corporate accountability, and mitigate the risk of misconduct or regulatory evasion.

Conclusions

Having outlined the extensive concerns surrounding Mr. Musk and his network of companies— including the potential for unchecked influence, glaring conflicts of interest, and avenues for financial and legal exposure—it is essential to underscore that these risks are not theoretical or hypothetical. The potential for these problems and improprieties skewing agency oversight and action will continue unless something is affirmatively done to stop them.

The DOJ’s unexplained dismissal of its case against SpaceX on February 21, 2025, was a windfall to the company and a warning to the American public. Without sustained, independent scrutiny, many of the cases discussed herein—including CFPB oversight, NLRB litigation, and FTC settlement supervision—could quietly disappear in much the same way: dismissed without explanation, deferred indefinitely, or resolved in any number of ways that prioritize Mr. Musk’s private interests over that of public accountability.

Attentive oversight of companies like SpaceX and Tesla, in particular, is imperative due to the significant economic, public safety, and environmental impacts their operations may have. Failures in launch safety or autonomous driving technology can lead to costly flight disruptions and tragic accidents, as evidenced by SpaceX’s Starship explosions and the numerous crashes linked to Tesla's systems.210 The potential for environmental damage is also substantial, ranging from air pollution from rocket launches and satellite disintegration to habitat destruction and chemical leaks from ground operations.211 The case of The Boring Company’s alleged improper waste disposal further underscores these risks.212

The broader costs associated with these activities extend beyond immediate incidents. Environmental cleanup, as seen with the Deepwater Horizon spill, can result in multi-billion dollar settlements, but these figures may still fall short of capturing the full extent of the damage inflicted.213 Robust and consistent oversight is not merely a regulatory burden, but a crucial necessity to mitigate potential economic losses, safeguard public well-being, and protect the environment from potentially irreversible harm, ensuring that profits do not come at an unacceptably high cost to society.

It is imperative that the President, the executive departments, and regulatory agencies, take coordinated action to address Elon Musk’s threat to the integrity of federal governance. Specifically:

• Respond in full to Congressional letters and information requests related to Mr. Musk’s federal entanglements.

• Direct all relevant agencies to conduct reviews of contracts, awards, or any communication with Mr. Musk or his affiliated companies to determine whether appropriate measures were/are in place to prevent undue influence.

• Initiate independent audits of major contracts and awards to Musk-affiliated companies, particularly those with Department of Defense and NASA.

No one individual, no matter how prominent or wealthy, is above the law. Anything less than decisive, immediate, and collective action risks America becoming a bystander to the surrender to modern oligarchy—public power in private hands.

Appendix

Table 3: Detailed List of Investigations and Litigation by Individual Case





Table 4: Total Active SpaceX (including Starlink) Contracts with the Federal Government as of April 5, 2025 214

[admin]

Part 3 of 3

_______________

Notes:

1 5 Reasons Federal Cuts Are Hitting Veterans Especially Hard, PBS (Mar. 16, 2025), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/5 ... ially-hard.

2 Musk Says Work to Stop Ebola Was Accidentally Cut but Restored. Experts Raise Doubts, NPR (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and- ... ola-usaid; After mass layoffs, some federal agencies are trying to bring employees back, NPR (Feb. 21, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/21/nx-s1-53 ... -reversed; FDA moves to rehire medical device, food safety and other staffers fired days earlier, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Feb. 24, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/fda-layoffs- ... 13bad4b702.

3 FAA Leader Quit Before D.C. Plane Crash — Thanks to Elon Musk, NEW REPUBLIC (Jan. 30, 2025), https://newrepublic.com/post/190942/faa ... -elon-musk.

4 Elon Musk’s DOGE Takes Aim at Agency That Had Plans of Regulating X, NPR (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-52 ... doge-cfpb; Trump fires EEOC and labor board officials, setting up legal fight, NPR (last updated Jan. 28, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/01/28/nx-s1- 5277103/nlrb-trump-wilcox-abruzzo-democrats-labor; The People Carrying Out Musk’s Plans at DOGE, N.Y. TIMES (last updated Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... -list.html.

5 Agencies with authority over Musk companies but without known current actions include the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHTMSA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These Departments Investigating Elon Musk Have Been Cut by DOGE and the Trump Administration, L.A. TIMES (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/business/story/ ... -interest; DOGE has arrived at the FTC, THE VERGE (Apr. 4, 2025), https://www.theverge.com/news/643674/do ... -elonmusk; Exclusive: Musk Brain Implant Company Violated US Hazardous Material Transport Rules -Documents, REUTERS (Jan. 26, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk ... smaterial- transport-rules-2024-01-26/; Elon Musk’s Business Empire Scores Benefits Under Trump Shake-Up, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/p ... licts.html.

6 Four of these citations were issued after January 20, 2025, but the investigations commenced prior to that date.

7 Mr. Musk joined Tesla as an early investor after the company was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003. As part of a 2009 agreement to settle a dispute among Tesla principals, the parties agreed to allow Mr. Musk and two other executives to refer to themselves as “founders” of Tesla. Tesla CEO Settles for “Founder” Title, NBC BAY AREA (Sept. 21, 2009), https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/t ... orfounder- title/2088887/ (last updated Oct. 14, 2009); Tesla Motors founders: Now there are five, CNET (Sept. 21, 2009) https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-moto ... -are-five/.

8 Elon Musk’s Business Empire Scores Benefits Under Trump Shake-Up, supra note 5; Elon Musk’s New Boring Co. Faced Questions Over SpaceX Financial Ties, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 17, 2018), https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks ... 545078371; Elon Musk’s stake in Tesla is becoming a smaller and smaller slice of his fortune, BUSINESS INSIDER (Mar. 19, 2025), https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... th-2025-3; How Elon Musk’s SpaceX Secretly Allows Investment From China, PROPUBLICA (Mar. 26, 2025), https://www.propublica.org/article/elon ... s-secrecy; Musk's social media firm X bought by his AI company, valued at $33 billion, REUTERS (Mar. 29, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/m ... 025-03-28/.

9 See, e.g., Dep’t of Com., Off. of Space & Com., Navigating U.S. Commercial Space Regulations, https://www.space.commerce.gov/links/re ... egulations (last visited Apr. 4, 2025); NAT’L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC & SAFETY ADMIN., Home Page, https://www.usa.gov/agencies/national-h ... nistration (last visited Apr. , 2025); U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., Overview of Device Regulation, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/dev ... egulatory- assistance/overview-device-regulation (last updated Jan. 31, 2024); FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN., About FHWA, https://highways.dot.gov/about/about-fhwa (last visited Apr. 4, 2025); Press Release, Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, CFPB Finalizes Rule on Federal Oversight of Popular Digital Payment Apps to Protect Personal Data, Reduce Fraud, and Stop Illegal “Debanking” (Nov. 21, 2024), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/aboutus/ newsroom/cfpb-finalizes-rule-on-federal-oversight-of-popular-digital-payment-apps-to-protect-personal-data-reduce-fraud-and-stop-illegal-debanking/; U.S. SEC. & EXCH. COMM’N, https://www.sec.gov/ (last visited Apr. 9, 2025).

10 A list of active government contracts held by Mr. Musk’s companies is available in the Appendix.

11 USA Spending, Recipient Profile: Space Exploration Technologies Corp., https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/8 ... eb90-P/all (last visited Apr. 3, 2025); USA Spending, Recipient Profile: Tesla Motors Inc., https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/3 ... bdce-2863- 3dd8-59f70c79b0c7-P/all (last visited Apr. 3, 2025); USA Spending, Recipient Profile: The Boring Company LLC, https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/8 ... 577c-R/all (last visited Apr. 3, 2025); Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding, WASH. POST (Feb. 26, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... s-funding/.

12 Elon Musk and SpaceX Face Federal Reviews After Violations of Security Reporting Rules, N.Y. TIMES (Dec 17, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/tech ... yreporting. html; CONG. RSCH. SERV., R43216, SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS: ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43216 (last updated Oct. 5, 2023).

13 Elon Musk and SpaceX Face Federal Reviews After Violations of Security Reporting Rules, supra note 12.

14 These departments investigating Elon Musk have been cut by DOGE and the Trump administration, supra note 5.

15 SpaceX’s Assault on a Fragile Habitat: Four Takeaways From Our Investigation, N.Y. TIMES (July 7, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/07/us/p ... ways.html; Letter from Charles Ardizzone, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., to Matthew Thompson, Director, Environmental Health and Safety, SpaceX (May 1, 2023), https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d ... b2f28efull. pdf.

16 U.S. DEP’T OF INTERIOR FISH &WILDLIFE SERV., Final Biological Conference Opinion in the matter of SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site, Cameron County, Texas (May 12, 2022), https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/5-12- 2022%20SpaceX%20Final%20BCO_signed%20with%20appendix%20A-D.pdf.

17 PIPELINE & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMIN., Hazardous Materials Approvals Search Page, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and ... als-search (follow hyperlink; then filter “Company Name” by “Tesla” and “SpaceX; select the search button.); Exclusive: Musk brain implant company violated US hazardous material transport rules -documents, supra note 5.

18 Consumer Complaint Database, U.S. CONSUMER FIN. PROT. BUREAU, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-re ... ts/search/ (filter “Company Name” by “Tesla, Inc.” and “Date CFPB Received the Complaint” from 04/03/2022 to 04/03/2025).

19 Since 2016, companies like Toyota, Hyundai, and Nissan have been required to collectively pay $45 million for a variety of unlawful practices ranging from illegal loan pricing, credit reporting failures, and collections and repossession—all of which bear a striking resemblance to the consumer complaints filed online against Tesla. Press Release, U.S. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, CFPB and DOJ Reach Resolution With Toyota Motor Credit To Address Loan Pricing Policies With Discriminatory Effects (Feb. 2, 2016), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/aboutus/ newsroom/cfpb-and-doj-reach-resolution-with-toyota-motor-credit-to-address-loan-pricing-policies-withdiscriminatory- effects/; Press Release, U.S. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, CFPB Orders Hyundai to Pay $19 Million for Widespread Credit Reporting Failures (July 26, 2022), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/aboutus/ newsroom/cfpb-orders-hyundai-to-pay-19-million-for-widespread-credit-reporting-failures/; Press Release, U.S. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Settles with Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation for Illegal Collections and Repossession Practices (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-u ... cceptance- corporation-illegal-collections-and-repossession-practices/

20 Elon Musk spends $277 million to back Trump and Republican candidates, CBS NEWS (Dec. 6, 2024), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk- ... donations/.

21 Exec. Order No. 14,158, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,441 (Jan. 20, 2025); Trump taps Musk to lead a 'Department of Government Efficiency' with Ramaswamy, NPR (Nov. 12, 2024), https://www.npr.org/2024/11/12/g-s1- 33972/trump-elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-government-efficiency-deep-state.

22 House Comm. on the Budget, The So-Called “DOGE” (Mar. 11, 2025), https://democratsbudget. house.gov/resources/fact-sheet/so-called-doge; The Federal Work Force Cuts So Far, Agency by Agency, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 1, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... al-jobcuts. html; DOGE Cuts Update: 121 Contracts Worth $350M Eliminated in Days, NEWSWEEK (Apr. 1, 2025), https://www.newsweek.com/doge-cuts-upda ... d-2052525; The government already knows a lot about you. DOGE is trying to access all of it, NPR (Mar. 11, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1- 5305054/doge-elon-musk-security-data-information-privacy.

23 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 (b).

24 18 U.S.C. § 208(a); 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101.

25 State of New Mexico v. Musk, No. 25-cv-00429 (D.D.C.) (Decl. of Joshua Fisher, ECF No. 24-1, Feb. 17, 2025).

26 Id.

27 18 U.S.C. § 202(a); The White House says Elon Musk is a “special government employee.” Here's what that means, CBS NEWS (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk- ... loyeewhat- does-that-mean/.

28 See, e.g. 5 U.S.C. §§ 13103, 13109; 5 C.F.R. § 2634.202 (defining the term “public filer”); 5 C.F.R. § 2634.904(a)(2) and (b) (defining the term “confidential filer”).

29 5 C.F.R. § 2634.904(a)(2), (b).

30 18 U.S.C. § 208(a); 5 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq.

31 18 U.S.C. § 208(a).

32 5 C.F.R. § 2640.103(a)(2); see also CONG. RSCH. SERV., LSB10250, EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS AND FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: DISQUALIFICATION Jan. 31, 2019).

33 18 U.S.C. § 208(b); 5 C.F.R. § 2640.101

34 Exec. Order 13,989, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,029 (Jan. 20, 2021); Exec. Order 13,770, 82 Fed. Reg. 9,333 (Jan. 28, 2017); Exec. Order 13,490, 74 Fed. Reg. 4,673 (Jan. 21, 2009).

35 Interview of President Trump and Elon Musk by Sean Hannity, “The Sean Hannity Show” (Feb. 18, 2025); White House Says Musk Will Police His Own Conflicts of Interest, BLOOMBERG (Feb. 5, 2025), http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025 ... f-interest.

36 On Musk’s potential conflicts, White House eyes untenable solution, MSNBC (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... esolution- rcna190973.

37 Trump ousts director of Office of Government Ethics, CBS (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-offi ... -director/.

38 The almighty Musk: How the world’s richest man became Washington’s most powerful bureaucrat, CNN (Feb. 14, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/politics ... ashington/ index.html.

39 Exec. Order No. 14,210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9,669 (Feb. 11, 2025); DOGE’s Millions: As Musk and Trump Gut Government, Their Ax-Cutting Agency Gets Cash Infusion, PROPUBLICA (Feb. 20, 2025), https://www.propublica.org/article/doge ... nsparency; The People Carrying Out Musk’s Plans at DOGE, supra note 4.

40 See, e.g., Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:25-00164 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2025); New Mexico v. Musk, No. 1:25-00429 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2025); Does 1-26 v. Musk, No. 8:25-cv-00462 (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2025); American Pub. Health Assoc. v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 1:25-cv-00167 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2025); Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk, No. 1:25-cv-00643 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2025).

41 New Mexico v. Musk, No. 1:25-00429 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2025); Judge declines to immediately block Elon Musk or DOGE from federal data or layoffs, ABC (Feb. 18, 2025), https://abc7.com/post/white-house-claims-elonmusk- does-not-run-doge-new-filing/15925645/.

42 See, e.g., Letter from S. Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affs. Ranking Member Gary Peters, Vice Chair on Appropriations Patty Murray, and Ranking Member Jeff Merkley to Russell Vought, Director, Office of Management and Budget (Feb. 12, 2025); Letter from S. Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to Charles Ezell, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management and Susie Wiles, White House Chief of Staff, Executive Office of the President (Feb. 7, 2025); Letter from S. Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to Susie Wiles, White House Chief of Staff, Executive Office of the President, and David Warrington, Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President, White House Counsel’s Office (Feb. 7, 2025).

43 Letters from Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations Ranking Member, Richard Blumenthal to Tesla, SpaceX, X, xAI, The Boring Company, and Neuralink (Feb. 25, 2025), https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsr ... -tomanage- doge-leaders-glaring-conflicts-of-interest.

44 These agencies include DOD, NASA, CFPB, FDA, FTC, PHTMSA, and FWS. NLRB, NHTSA, and OFCCP will be discussed further in this report.

45 Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Sept. 17, 2024, 7:15 p.m.), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1836182108412481871; Elon Musk, Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Sept. 17, 2024, 1:37 p.m.), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1836097185395666955; Press Release, Fed. Aviation Admin., FAA Proposes $639,009 in Civil Penalties Against SpaceX (Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faaproposes- 633009-civil-penalties-against-spacex.

46 Elon Musk bungles his criticism of U.S. drug regulators, STAT NEWS (Oct. 24, 2024), https://www.statnews.com/2024/10/24/elo ... gulators/; From A.I. to Musk’s Brain Chips, the F.D.A.’s Device Unit Faces Rapid Change, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 1, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/heal ... vices.html.

47 ‘Delete CFPB’: Musk calls for elimination of consumer bureau, POLITICO (Nov. 27, 2024), https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... merbureau- 00191994; Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Nov. 27, 2024, 2:35 a.m.), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1861644897490751865.

48 SEC sues Elon Musk, alleging failure to properly disclose Twitter ownership, CNBC (Jan. 14, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/14/sec-sue ... rship.html. Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Jan. 14, 2025, 7:18 p.m.), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1879322286291054653; Sec.& Exch. Comm’n v. Musk, No. 1:25-cv-105 (D.D.C. Jan. 14, 2025).

49 Government watchdogs fired by Trump sue to get their jobs back, CNN (last updated Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/12/politics ... index.html.

50 Exclusive: Musk’s Neuralink faces federal probe, employee backlash over animal tests, REUTERS (Dec. 6, 2022), https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk ... imaltests- 2022-12-05/; U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev. Off. of Inspector Gen., Project Announcement: Inspection of USAID's Oversight of Starlink Terminals Provided to the Government of Ukraine (May 14, 2024), https://oig.usaid.gov/node/6814. The Subcommittee chose not to include the USAID OIG investigation in its calculation of Mr. Musk’s potential exposure because the little information that was available suggests that it was US AID’s contracting practices, rather than Starlink itself, under review.

51 See, e.g., General Statement, Fed. Aviation Admin., SpaceX Starship Flight 7 Mishap Investigation (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements ... statements (last visited Apr. 11, 2025) (announcing the closure of the investigation); News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, US Department of Labor to Cease and Desis All Investigative and Enforcement Activity under Rescinded Executive Order 11246 (Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/o ... c20250124; Tesla discrimination probe killed as Trump axes watchdog agency, SAN FRANCISCO STANDARD (Feb. 6, 2025), https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/06/trump ... topstesla- discrimination-investigation/; A lawyer who represented SpaceX looks to downsize federal contracting watchdog, NPR (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/03/27/nx-s1-53 ... xdownsize- federal-contractors-watchdog; United States v. Space Expl. Techs. Corp., 18 OCAHO no. 1499b., (Order Confirming Dismissal, Feb. 24, 2025).

52 National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, No. 1:25-cv-381 (D.D.C.) (Amended Complaint filed Feb. 13, 2025).

53 DOGE Is Hunting for Cuts at the SEC, BARRON’S (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.barrons.com/articles/dogesec- cuts-1cbe7443.

54 Id.

55 How Elon Musk Muscled His Way Into the FAA, BLOOMBERG (Mar. 5, 2025), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... ds-togain- business.

56 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., US Department of Labor appoints Catherine Eschbach as director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (Mar. 24, 2025), https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/o ... p20250324; A lawyer who represented SpaceX looks to downsize federal contracting watchdog, supra note 51.

57 A lawyer who represented SpaceX looks to downsize federal contracting watchdog, supra note 51.

58 As will be discussed further below, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also issued four citations after January 20, 2025. These citations, however, were related to investigation started before that date.

59 Musk's social media firm X bought by his AI company, valued at $33 billion, supra note 8.

60 This report does not consider Mr. Musk’s potential benefits from influence over federal contracts, access to or use of federal data, changes in regulations, or the absence of future enforcement of regulatory violations that may have taken place but not yet been reported, or that may occur in the future.

61 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Justice Department Sues SpaceX for Discriminating Against Asylees and Refugees in Hiring (Aug. 24, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr ... iminating- against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring.

62 Id.

63 Complaint, United States v. Space Expl. Techs. Corp., 18 OCAHO no. 1499 (Aug. 23, 2023); see also 22 C.F.R. § 120.62; 15 C.F.R. pt. 772.

64 Order Confirming Dismissal, United States v. Space Expl. Techs. Corp., 18 OCAHO no. 1499b (Feb. 24, 2025).

65 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.

66 31 C.F.R. pt. 1010 (2025).

67 See id.

68 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for 2024, 89 Fed. Reg. 9,764 (Feb. 12, 2024).

69 Complaint, United States v. Space Expl. Techs. Corp., 18 OCAHO no. 1499 (Aug. 23, 2023).

70 Id.

71 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for 2024, supra note 68.

72 Exclusive: Tesla faces U.S. criminal probe over self-driving claims, REUTERS (Oct. 27, 2022), https://www.reuters.com/legal/exclusive ... s-2022-10- 26/.

73 Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2022).

74 Id.

75 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1348.

76 18 U.S.C § 3571(d).

77 Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2024).

78 Elon Musk's Tesla Faces FSD Uptake Challenge as Only 2% of Free Trial Users Subscribe, Gary Black Terms the Figure 'Disappointing', BENZINGA (May 13, 2024), https://www.benzinga.com/markets/equiti ... e-as-only- 2-of-free-trial-users-subscribe-gary-black-t; Tesla's Low FSD Take Rate Offers Growth Opportunity, TORQUE NEWS (Mar. 28, 2022), https://www.torquenews.com/1083/teslas- ... pportunity.

79 Id.

80 Toyota Agreement Showcases New DOJ Enforcement Model, LAW360 (Apr. 21, 2014), https://www.law360.com/articles/530302/ ... ent-model; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Justice Department Announces Criminal Charge Against Toyota Motor Corporation and Deferred Prosecution Agreement with $1.2 Billion Financial Penalty (Mar. 19, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr ... rporation- and-deferred.

81 Musk Says He Wants to Save the Planet. Tesla’s Factories Are Making It Dirtier, WALL ST. J. (Nov. 24, 2024), https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/elon ... t-1263cd60.

82 Id.

83 Id.

84 Enforcement and Compliance History Online, ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, https://echo.epa.gov/ (follow hyperlink; then insert the following facility identification numbers into the Facility Name/ID search bar “110071408012” and “110071248934”; select the search button.).

85 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

86 Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Clean Water Act, (Jun. 12, 2024), https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/su ... -water-act (last visited Apr. 16, 2025).

87 33 U.S.C. § 1317; 40 C.F.R. Part 403.

88 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d); Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 90 Fed. Reg. 1,375 (Jan. 8, 2025).

89 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2).

90 Musk Says He Wants to Save the Planet. Tesla’s Factories Are Making It Dirtier, WALL ST. J. (Nov. 24, 2024), https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/elon ... t-1263cd60.

91 Complaint, EEOC v. Tesla, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2024); see also Press Release, U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, EEOC Sues Tesla for Racial Harassment and Retaliation (Sept. 28, 2023), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues ... etaliation.

92 Complaint, EEOC v. Tesla, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2024); Exhibit F, EEOC v. Tesla, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2024).

93 Id.

94 Complaint, EEOC v. Tesla, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2024); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

95 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

96 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

97 Complaint, EEOC v. Tesla, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2024); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a(a)(1), (b), and 2000e-5(g).

98 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a(a)(1), (b), and 2000e-5(g).

99 Id.

100 42 U.S. Code § 1981a(b)(1).

101 Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Tesla, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 3d 875, 887 (N.D. Cal. 2024).

102 Vaughn v. Tesla, Inc, No. RG17-882082, 2024 WL 2786025, at *3 (Cal.Super. May 17, 2024).

103 Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2024).

104 Vaughn v. Tesla, Inc, No. RG17-882082, 2024 WL 2786025, at *17 (Cal.Super. May 17, 2024).

105 Id.

106 Complaint, EEOC v. Tesla, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2024).

107 Fed. Aviation Admin., supra note 45.

108 FED. AVIATION ADMIN., Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, Space Exploration Technologies, Case No. 2023WA990028 (Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... 0917-case- 2023WA990028.pdf; FED. AVIATION ADMIN., Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, Space Exploration Technologies, Case No. 2023WA990031 (Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... 0917-case- 2023WA990031_0.pdf.

109 See 51 U.S.C. § 50901 et seq.

110 51 U.S.C. § 50917(c).

111 SpaceX blasts proposed FAA fines in complaint letter to Congress, SPACE (Sept. 19, 2024), https://www.space.com/spacex-letter-con ... -faa-fines.

112 FAA Administrator Quit on Jan. 20 After Elon Musk Told Him to Resign, DAILY BEAST (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.yahoo.com/news/faa-administ ... 22293.html.

113 FAA Leader Quit Before D.C. Plane Crash—Thanks to Elon Musk, supra note 3.

114 FAA Electronic Reading Room, FED. AVIATION ADMIN., https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

115 Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Aug 13, 2024, 3:03 AM), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823254086126608862.

116 See Press Release, End Citizens United, End Citizens United Files FEC Complaint Against Trump Campaign and X Over Illegal Corporate Contribution (Aug. 13, 2024), https://endcitizensunited.org/latestnews/ press-releases/end-citizens-united-files-fec-complaint-against-trump-campaign-and-x-over-illegal-corporatecontribution/.

117 Enforcing federal campaign finance law, FED. ELECTION COMM’N, https://www.fec.gov/legalresources/ enforcement/ (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

118 Audit Reports, FED. ELECTION COMM’N, https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/enf ... it-search/ (last visited Apr. 11, 2025); Latest Updates, FED. ELECTION COMM’N, https://www.fec.gov/updates/?update_type=weekly-digest (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

119 52 U.S.C. §§ 30118(a), 30101(8)(A), and 30101(9)(A).

120 See FED. ELECTION COMM’N, CAMPAIGN GUIDE FOR CORPORATIONS AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, 16, (Jan. 2018), https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-conte ... lagui.pdf; see also 11 C.F.R. 100.52(d)(2); 11 C.F.R. 100.111(e)(2).

121 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6).

122 At SpaceX, worker injuries soar in Elon Musk’s rush to Mars, REUTERS (Nov. 10, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp ... sk-safety/.

123 OSHA Inspection Detail 1790526.015 - Wa317983383 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp (opened Nov. 22, 2024), https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 790526.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025); OSHA Inspection Detail 1787938.015 - Wa317983230 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp (opened Nov. 14, 2024), https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 787938.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025).

124 OSHA Inspection Detail: 1787938.015 - Wa317983230 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp (opened Nov. 14, 2024), https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 787938.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025); WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 296-824-20005; WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 296-824-30005.

125 OSHA Inspection Detail 1790526.015 - Wa317983383 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp (opened Nov. 22, 2024), https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 790526.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025); WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 296-62-07521; WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 296-841-20005; WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 296-800-23040.

126 OSHA Inspection Detail 1677194.015 - Tbc The Boring Company (opened Jul. 15, 2023), https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 677194.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025); Elon Musk’s Vegas Tunnel Project Has Been Racking Up Safety Violations, BLOOMBERG (Feb. 26, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... etyissues/ (last updated on Feb. 27, 2024).

127 OSHA Inspection Detail 1677194.015 - Tbc The Boring Company (opened Jul. 15, 2023), https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 677194.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025).

128 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/inspectionNr.html (follow hyperlink; then insert the following inspection numbers in the search bar “1454931.015, 1498332.015, 1513294.015, 1518504.015, 1523622.015, 1526992.015, 1537575.015, 1539967.015, 1552002.015, 1556213.015, 1566582.015, 1597846.015, 1603753.015, 1609730.015, 1632314.015, 1662190.015, 1697213.015, 1698772.015, 1715570.015, 1718063.015, 1732013.015, 1737821.015, 1763341.015, 1765188.015, 1766557.015, 1798179.015”; select the search button).

129 See Feds fine Tesla nearly $50K after worker’s death at Austin gigafactory, KUT NEWS (Mar. 6, 2024), https://www.kut.org/transportation/2025 ... stintexas; OSHA Violation Detail 1766557.015 – Standard Cited: A Criteria for personal protective equipment. (issued Jan. 31, 2025) https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... n_id=01001 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025); OSHA Inspection Detail 1766557.015 - Tesla Giga Factory (opened Aug. 1, 2024) https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 766557.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025).

130 CONG. RSCH. SERV., R48292, THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970 (OSH ACT): A LEGAL OVERVIEW (2024), https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R48292; Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (1970).

131 29 U.S. Code § 666.

132 U.S. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMIN., 2024 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO OSHA CIVIL PENALTIES (Jan. 8, 2024), https://www.osha.gov/memos/2024-01-08/2 ... -penalties.

133 One citation issued to Tesla on February 10, 2025, is listed as “open,” with the latest event as “issued.” OSHA Inspection Detail 1798179.015 – Tesla Energy Operations, Inc. (opened Jan. 16, 2025), https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establis ... 798179.015 (last visited Apr. 4, 2025).

134 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/inspectionNr.html (follow hyperlink; then insert the following inspection numbers in the search bar “1454931.015, 1498332.015, 1513294.015, 1518504.015, 1523622.015, 1526992.015, 1537575.015, 1539967.015, 1552002.015, 1556213.015, 1566582.015, 1597846.015, 1603753.015, 1609730.015, 1632314.015, 1662190.015, 1697213.015, 1698772.015, 1715570.015, 1718063.015, 1732013.015, 1737821.015, 1763341.015, 1765188.015, 1766557.015, 1798179.015”; select the search button).

135 Complaint, Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff, v. Elon Musk, c/o Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Defendant., 2025 WL 105317.

136 Id. at 46.

137 A timeline of Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, NBC NEWS (Nov. 17 2022), https://www.nbcnews.com/business/busine ... -rcna57532.

138 15 U.S.C. § 78m(d).

139 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3); U.S. SEC. & EXCH. COMM’N, INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES ADMINISTERED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (as of January 15, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/enforce/civil-penal ... djustments (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

140 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(ii) and (iii).

141 The SEC’s complaint against Mr. Musk does not specifically address fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement, but it does allege that, inter alia, 1) Mr. Musk “understood that the federal securities laws required certain owners of more than five percent of a public company’s common stock to publicly disclose their ownership stake to the public by filing a report with the SEC[,]” 2) Mr. Musk ignored repeated suggestions to seek legal advice as to his reporting obligations, and 3) Mr. Musk continued purchasing Twitter stock after he knew he crossed the threshold for requiring public disclosure. See Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff, v. Elon Musk, c/o Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Defendant., 2025 WL 105317, at 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37. The Subcommittee chose to use the lowest tiered penalty at 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(i) in its calculation while acknowledging the possibility that Mr. Musk’s conduct may warrant higher penalties due to aggravating factors.

142 Letter from Ryan Merkley, Director of Research Advocacy, Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med., & Deborah Dunbow Press, Assoc. Gen. Couns., Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med., to Gurbir Grewal, Division Director, Securities, & Nicole Kelly, Chief of Office of the Whistleblower, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n. (Sep. 20, 2023), https://pcrm.widen.net/s/qwg2svzh9n/sec ... 023.09.20; Press Release, Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med., SEC Reopens Investigation Into Elon Musk’s Neuralink Likely Launched by Medical Ethics Group’s Complaint About Monkey Deaths (Dec. 13, 2024), https://www.pcrm.org/news/newsreleases/ sec-reopens-investigation-elon-musks-neuralink-likely-launched-medical-ethics

143 Neuralink Corp., Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities (Form D) (Aug. 8, 2023); Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Sep. 10, 2023, 6:57 AM) https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1700825786326896950.

144 Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med., supra note 142; Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Dec 12, 2024, 6:54 PM) https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1867357433493872874/.

145 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).

146 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2).

147 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3).

148 15 U.S.C. § 78u; U.S. SEC. & EXCH. COMM’N., supra note 139.

149 Exclusive: SEC probes Tesla over whistleblower claims on solar panel defects, REUTERS (Dec. 6, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... eldefects- 2021-12-06/.

150 The SEC’s enforcement manual contains numerous confidentiality provisions to protect the sensitive information that may be acquired during an investigation. See, e.g., U.S. SEC. & EXCH. COMM’N., ENFORCEMENT MANUAL 78, 107 (Nov. 28, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/e ... manual.pdf. The manual states that “[a]n investigation that has resulted in an enforcement action cannot be closed until all enforcement actions in the case are complete,” but that “[c]losing investigations where no enforcement action will be recommended can be a harder judgement call.”; Id. at 26-27.

151 Financial watchdogs that regularly file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the SEC state that the commission “almost always refuses to release” these internal documents. See, e.g., SEC Investigation Update, PROBES REPORTER (May 18, 2022), https://probesreporter.com/sites/defaul ... 0518-a.pdf. Practitioners who frequently defend entities facing SEC investigations note that investigations often last two or more years, and that “investigations lasting five years or longer are not unheard of.” See, e.g., LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, SEC INVESTIGATIONS: A GUIDE FOR PUBLIC COMPANY DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND IN-HOUSE COUNSEL 13 (2022), https://www.lw.com/admin/upload/SiteAtt ... dition.pdf.

152 Henkes v. Tesla Energy, Inc., No. RG20080233 (pending before Cal. Super. Ct., Cnty. of Alameda) (on file with the Subcommittee).

153 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 § 13(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a); see also 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.13a-1 and § 240.15d-14.

154 Exclusive: SEC probes Tesla over whistleblower claims on solar panel defects, supra note 149.  

155 ''Energy generation and storage revenue includes sales and leasing of solar energy generation and energy storage products, financing of solar energy generation products, services related to such products and sales of solar energy systems incentives." Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 1 0-K) (Dec. 31, 2024), at 38.

156 Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 3 1, 2024); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2023); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec 31, 2022); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2021); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2020); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K (Dec. 31, 2019); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K (Dec. 31, 2018); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2017); Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2016)

157 Tesla's 2016 revenue for this segment was $181,394,000, with a cost of revenue of$178,332,000, making the profit from this revenue $3,062,000. Tesla's 2017 revenue for this segment was $1,116,266,000, with a cost of revenue of $87 4,538,000, making the profit from this revenue $241,728,000. See Tesla, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2018).

158 Press Release, Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med., Statement from the Physicians Committee on Neuralink’s Purported Patient Implant (Jan. 30, 2024), https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases ... hysicians- committee-neuralinks-purported-patient-implant; Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.

159 Exclusive: Musk’s Neuralink faces federal probe, employee backlash over animal tests, supra note 50.

160 The Gruesome Story of How Neuralink’s Monkeys Actually Died, WIRED (Sept. 28, 2023), https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-p ... 017469377; Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med., supra note 158.

161 Exclusive: USDA inspector general escorted out of her office after defying White House, REUTERS (Jan. 29, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-i ... hitehouse- 2025-01-29/.

162 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 and 2143.

163 7 U.S.C. § 2149(b); Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2024, 89 Fed. Reg. 48,495 (June 7, 2024).

164 18 U.S.C. § 3571; CONG. RSCH. SERV., R47179, THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT: BACKGROUND AND SELECTED ISSUES (2023), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47179.

165 It is possible that the number of animals involved exceeded 98. For this analysis, the Subcommittee assumed that two monkeys reported on by Reuters are included in the 12 monkeys reported on by Wired. The assumption was made to provide a conservative figure for the total animals involved. Additionally, methodologies vary with regard to calculating the number of violation occurrences under the Animal Welfare Act, including use of “per day, per violation, per animal” assessment. Delcianna Winders & Varu Chilakamarri, Animal Welfare Act: Enforcement, 25 ANIMAL L. REV. 249, 251 (2019).

166 SpaceX accused of unlawfully firing staff critical of Elon Musk, BBC (Jan. 3, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67878940; Space Expl. Techs., Corp. v. Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd., 129 F.4th 906 (5th Cir. 2025).

167 Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint, and Notice of Hearing, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Nos. 31-CA-307446, 31-CA-307532. 31-CA-307539, 31-CA-307546, 31-CA-307551, 31-CA- 307555, 31-CA-307514, 31-CA-307525, (Jan. 3, 2024), available at https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.asp ... 4583c00986.

168 Launching into New Territory (Continued): SpaceX Wins Temporary Relief at Fifth Circuit, NAT’L L. REV. (May 6, 2024), https://natlawreview.com/article/launch ... aryrelief- fifth-circuit.

169 Tesla, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 101 (Mar. 25, 2021).

170 Id.

171 See Tesla, Inc. v. Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd., 120 F.4th 433 (5th Cir. 2024); Tesla, Inc. v. Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd., 86 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2023).

172 29 U.S.C. § 158.

173 See 29 U.S.C. § 160; Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022); Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Stationary Eng’rs, Loc. 39 v. Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd., 127 F.4th 58 (9th Cir. 2025).

174 Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022); Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Stationary Eng'rs, Loc. 39 v. Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd., 127 F.4th 58 (9th Cir. 2025).

175 NHTSA Recalls by Manufacturer, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSP., (Apr. 7, 2025), https://datahub.transportation.gov/Auto ... /mu99-t4jn (search manufacturer field for “Tesla, Inc.” and report received date field for “From 01/01/2020”).

176 NHTSA Investigations by Manufacturer, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSP., https://data.transportation.gov/stories ... /auu6-iy49 (last visited Apr. 11, 2025), (search action number field for “PE22002”, “PE23003”, “DP23001”, “DP23002”, “EA24001”, “RQ24009”, “PE24031”, and “PE24033”).

177 Track recalls & safety issues by NHTSA ID, NAT’L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=PE24031 (search NHTSA safety issue ID field for “PE24031”; then click hyperlink “Download as PDF”).

178 Musk's DOGE fired self-drive car safety experts at agency that regulates Tesla, FINANCIAL TIMES (April 10, 2025), https://www.ft.com/content/ede5b41d-4b9 ... 13b11f9ad1.

179 NAT'L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., DOT HS 808 795, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY DEFECTS AND RECALLS: WHAT EVERY VEHICLE OWNER SHOULD KNOW (Nov. 2024), https:/ /www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-11/MVSDefectsandRecalls-Update_112124_v1a_tag.pdf.

180 NAT'L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., DOT HS 812 984, RISK-BASED PROCESSES FOR SAFETY DEFECT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF RECALLS, 10 (Nov. 2020), https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/f ... nts/14895_ odi_defectsrecallspubdoc_110520-v6a-tag.pdf.

181 Id.

182 Id. at 9-11.

183 The auto industry's growing recall problem-and how to fix if, ALIX PARTNERS (Jan. 2018), https://www.alixpartners.com/media/1443 ... n_2018.pdf.

184 Hyundai's Recall Of 82,000 Electric Cars Is One Of The Most Expensive In History, CBS NEWS (Feb. 26, 2021), https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/ ... -is-one-of -the-most-expensive- in-history/.

185 CONG. RSCH. SERV., IF12941, THE HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS (OFCCP) (2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_p ... 2941.1.pdf.

186 U.S. DEP. OF LAB., OFFICE OF FED. CONT. COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, FY 2024 CSAL SUPPLY & SERVICE SCHEDULING LIST, RELEASE – 1 (2024), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ ... es/FY2024- CSAL-SupplyAndService-SchedulingList-Release1.xlsx; Corporate Scheduling Announcement Lists, U.S. DEP. OF LAB., OFFICE OF FED. CONT. COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/foia ... cheduling- announcement-lists (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

187 Exec. Order No. 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 21, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/ 2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/.

188 Id.; Press Release, U.S. Dept. of Lab., US Department of Labor to cease and desist all investigative and enforcement activity under rescinded Executive Order 11246 (Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/o ... c20250124; Tesla discrimination probe killed as Trump axes watchdog agency (Feb. 6, 2025), THE SAN FRANCISCO STANDARD, https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/06/trump-order-stops- tesla-discrimination-investigation/.

189 Tesla discrimination probe killed as Trump axes watchdog agency, supra note 188.

190 CONG. RSCH. SERV., LSB11268, RESCISSION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246, "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY": LEGAL IMPLICATIONS (2025), https://www.crs.gov/Reports/LSB11268.

191 What Financial Institutions May Be Missing in Their Compliance Portfolio – OFCCP Compliance, HUNTON (Aug. 6, 2024), https://www.hunton.com/hunton-employmen ... titutions- may-be-missing-in-their-compliance-portfolio-of-ccp-compliance; 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.26.

192 Conciliation Agreements, U.S. DEP. OF LAB., OFFICE OF FED. CONT. COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/foia ... agreements (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

193 Conciliation Agreement Between U.S. Dept. of Lab. and LinkedIn Corp. (Apr. 27, 2022), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ ... acted.pdf; Early Resolution Conciliation Agreement Between U.S. Dept. of Lab. and Google LLC (Jan. 15, 2021), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ ... dacted.pdf.

194 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT, 2024 ANNUAL LITIGATION TRENDS SURVEY: PERSPECTIVES FROM CORPORATE COUNSEL 6-7 (2024), https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/m ... ledgepdfs/ norton-rose-fulbright-2024-annual-litigation-trends-survey.pdf.

195 Id. at 29.

196 GLOBALSCAPE, THE TRUE COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS 16 (2017), https://static.fortra.com/globalscape/p ... ons-gd.pdf.

197 Press Release, U.S. Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Imposes $5 Billion Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook (July 24, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... tcimposes- 5-billion-penalty-sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions-facebook.

198 In the Matter of Twitter, Inc., A Corp., No. 92-3093, 2011 WL 914034 (MSNET Mar. 2, 2011) (available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files ... tterdo.pdf).

199 Press Release, U.S. Fed. Trade. Comm’n, FTC Accepts Final Settlement with Twitter for Failure to Safeguard Personal Information (Mar. 11, 2011), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... tcaccepts- final-settlement-twitter-failure-safeguard-personal-information; Musk Says X Has 600 Million Monthly Active Users, BLOOMBERG (May 23, 2024), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and- ... ays-x-has- 600-million-monthly-active-users.

200 51 U.S.C. § 50908(c).

201 New Report Puts Impact of Boeing 737 MAX Grounding at $4.1 Billion, FORBES (Aug. 10, 2019), https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... ing-at-41- billion/.

202 Elon Musk’s Neuralink approved to recruit humans for brain-implant trial, THE GUARDIAN (Sept. 19, 2023), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... n-implant; Musk’s Neuralink gets FDA’s breakthrough device tag for ‘Blindsight’ implant, REUTERS (Sept. 18, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... devicetag- brain-implant-2024-09-17/.

203 Device Approvals and Clearances, U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/ products-and-medical-procedures/device-approvals-and-clearances (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

204 Elon Musk’s Business Empire Is Built On $38 Billion in Government Funding, supra note 11.

205 NASA Still Mulling Options for Boeing’s Troubled Starliner Astronaut Capsule, SPACE.COM (Mar. 19, 2025), https://www.space.com/space-exploration ... stroubled- starliner-astronaut-capsule; Press Release, Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., NASA Chooses American Companies to Transport U.S. Astronauts to International Space Station (Sept. 16, 2024), https://www.nasa.gov/newsrelease/ nasa-chooses-american-companies-to-transport-u-s-astronauts-to-international-space-station/.

206 Facebook Stock Recovers All $134B Lost After Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal, CBS NEWS (May 10, 2018), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-s ... analytica- datascandal/; FTC Confirms It’s Investigating Facebook For Possible Privacy Violations, NPR (Mar. 26, 2018), https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... rpossible- privacy-violations; Facebook Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Cambridge Analytica Data Security Concerns, EXPERT INSTITUTE (June 23, 2020), https://www.expertinstitute.com/resourc ... areholder- lawsuit-over-cambridge-analytica-data-security-concerns/.

207 Why One Economist Says Elon Musk Has Turned Tesla Into a Meme Stock, BUSINESS INSIDER (May 2, 2024), https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... eearnings- 2024-5; see also Tesla Stock Is Down As Musk's DOGE Role Changes Some Buyers' Minds, FORBES (Mar. 7, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan ... angessome- buyers-minds/.

208 Volkswagen Drops 23% After Admitting Diesel Emissions Cheat, BLOOMBERG (Sept. 21, 2015), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ionscheat; Volkswagen Vows to ‘Win Back Customer Trust’ As Brand Hit by Emissions Scandal, MARKETING WEEK (Sept. 22, 2015), https://www.marketingweek.com/volkswage ... kcustomer- trust-following-emissions-scandal/; Going Up in Fumes: Why the Volkswagen Scandal Is So Outrageous, REPORTER MAGAZINE: ROCHESTER INST. TECH. (Oct. 3, 2015), https://reporter.rit.edu/5347/views/going-up-infumes- why-the-volkswagen-scandal-is-so-outrageous/; Understanding Public Perception of VW Emissions: Trust, Betrayal, and Corporate Responsibility, CARS TRUCKS ROADS (Nov. 12, 2024), https://carstrucksroads.com/publicperception- of-vw-emissions/.

209 Uber’s Talent Exodus Isn’t Over Yet, VANITY FAIR (June 1, 2017), https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06 ... nt-exodus; Uber to pay $4.4M over sexual harassment and retaliation charges, CNET (Dec. 18, 2019), https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/uber-t ... arassment- and-retaliation-charges-after-eeoc-investigation/; Uber CEO Travis Kalanick resigns under investor pressure, REUTERS (June 17, 2017), https://www.reuters.com/article/technol ... ignsunder- investor-pressure-idUSKBN19C0G6/.

210 SpaceX Starship Explosions Impacted Nearly 500 Flights, Cost Carriers Millions, AVIATIONPROS (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/n ... early-500- flights-cost-carriers-millions; Tesla Has the Highest Fatal Accident Rate of All Auto Brands, Study Finds, ROAD & TRACK (Nov. 15, 2024), https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a6291 ... f-allauto- brands-study/.

211 How Much Did SpaceX's Starship Flight 7 Explosion Pollute the Atmosphere?, SPACE (Feb. 2, 2025), https://www.space.com/space-exploration ... tmosphere; Wildlife Protections Take a Back Seat to SpaceX’s Ambitions, N.Y. TIMES (July 7, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/07/us/p ... exas.html; FAA Orders Musk’s SpaceX to Take 63 Corrective Actions on Starship, Keeps Rocket Grounded, CNBC (Sept. 8, 2023), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/08/faa-sta ... ction.html.

212 Elon Musk’s Boring Company Is Tunneling Beneath Las Vegas With Little Oversight, PROPUBLICA (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.propublica.org/article/elon ... -oversight.

213 The Deepwater Horizon spill resulted in a $20 billion settlement, with roughly $8 billion earmarked for natural resource damage alone. Nevertheless, BP estimated total costs of the oil spill disaster at over $54 billion— more than twice the cost born by the company. BP Settles Final Gulf Oil Spill Claims for $20 Billion, CNN (Oct. 6, 2015), https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/06/news/c ... index.html.

[admin]

Musk, companies could avoid $2 billion in potential liability over DOGE role: Report
by Miranda Nazzaro
The Hill
04/28/25 3:21 PM ET
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5 ... liability/

Tech billionaire Elon Musk and his numerous companies could avoid more than $2.37 billion in potential legal liability as a result of his influential role in the federal government, a new Senate report alleges.

The report, published Monday by the Democratic staff for the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, found Musk and his companies faced at least 65 “actual or potential” actions from 11 federal agencies and at least $2.37 billion in potential liability as of Inauguration Day.

“The nature of Mr. Musk’s businesses, as well as their substantial earnings from government contracts, mean that he is deeply entangled in the regulatory functions of the government he is now empowered to shape,” the report stated. “President Trump could not have chosen a person more prone to conflicts of interest.”

Musk is leading Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cost-cutting initiative, which has led to mass layoffs or program spending cuts at numerous federal agencies.

The subcommittee said it conducted a probe of the 65 actions to “understand the financial impact of President Trump’s delegation of power on potential liabilities and scrutiny” facing Musk and his companies.

“The goal of this analysis is to estimate the financial liability that Mr. Musk and his companies may stand to avoid through his efforts to gut the federal workforce and exert influence over federal agencies,” the report stated.

The report claims to reveal the “vast risk Mr. Musk and his companies previously faced and may yet avoid as a result of his newfound influence.”

The billions in potential liabilities stem from actions against his electric vehicle manufacturing company Tesla, aerospace firm SpaceX and Neuralink, his neurotechnology company.

Neuralink and Tesla are accused of making false or misleading statements about some of their product features, while SpaceX allegedly failed to follow rocket launch requirements in 2023, according to the report.

Neuralink is also facing action for allegedly violating the Animal Welfare Act, while Musk’s construction firm the Boring Company faces citations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The Hill reached out to the four companies for comment.

Some of the agencies behind the regulatory actions are the same ones facing cuts and drastic changes as a result of DOGE, the lawmakers pointed out

“The through line connecting many of Mr. Musk’s decisions appears to be self-enrichment and avoiding what he perceives as obstacles to advancing his interests,” the memo stated. “Mr. Musk’s position may allow him to evade oversight, derail investigations, and make litigation disappear whenever he so chooses—on his terms and at his command.”

The subcommittee’s ranking member, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), sent letters to the four companies, along with Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, asking for information about the federal investigations that were active on Jan. 20.

Musk’s “demonstrated influence over senior leaders has enabled him to terminate or marginalize officials willing to challenge his authority. His threatened retaliation may intimidate many others,” Blumenthal wrote in his letter to Tesla.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung fiercely denied the claims of the report on Monday.

“Mr. Musk has never used his position for personal or financial gain, and any assertion otherwise is completely false and defamatory,” Cheung wrote in a statement to The Hill.

Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly sounded the alarm over Musk’s compliance with conflict of interest, ethics and reporting requirements. Amid mounting scrutiny and backlash against his firms, notably including Tesla, Musk said last week that he plans to spend less time on the DOGE efforts by the end of May to focus on his other companies.

[admin]

A ‘Citizen Lawyer’ Gets a Standing Ovation at the Supreme Court. In a remarkable scene, the justices applauded Edwin S. Kneedler, a government lawyer with a reputation for candor, care and integrity.
by Adam Liptak
Reporting from Washington
The New York Times
April 28, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/28/us/p ... ation.html

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Edwin S. Kneedler in 2008. He joined the Office of the Solicitor General, the elite unit of the Justice Department that represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, in 1979.Credit...Andy Cross/The Denver Post, via Getty Images

After a routine Supreme Court argument on Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked the lawyer who had represented the government to return to the lectern.

“You have just presented your 160th argument before this court, and I understand it is intended to be your last,” the chief justice told the lawyer, Edwin S. Kneedler, who is retiring as a deputy solicitor general. “That is the record for modern times.”

Chief Justice Roberts talked a little more, with affection and high praise, thanking Mr. Kneedler for his “extraordinary care and professionalism.”

Then something remarkable happened. Applause burst out in the courtroom, and that led to a standing ovation for Mr. Kneedler, with the justices joining, too.

“It was a rare moment of unanimity and spontaneous joy from all nine justices on the bench,” said Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard. “They were all beaming.”

Kannon Shanmugam, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer, said it was “one of the most electric moments I’ve ever seen in the courtroom.”

The tribute to Mr. Kneedler’s candor and integrity came against the backdrop of a different kind of courtroom behavior. In the early months of the second Trump administration, its lawyers have been accused of gamesmanship, dishonesty and defiance, and have been fired for providing frank answers to judges.

Mr. Kneedler presented a different model, former colleagues said.

“Ed is the embodiment of the government lawyer ideal — one whose duty of candor to the court and interest in doing justice, not just winning a case, always carried the day,” said Gregory G. Garre, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

Mr. Shanmugam said Mr. Kneedler’s loyalty was to the rule of law. “He would much rather get the law right at the risk of losing,” Mr. Shanmugam said, “than win at the cost of misrepresenting the law.”

Seth P. Waxman, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said Mr. Kneedler was the opposite of a partisan.

“In all the years that I worked with Ed in the Justice Department, I did not know his politics,” Mr. Waxman said.

Mr. Kneedler joined the Office of the Solicitor General, the elite unit of the Justice Department that represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, in 1979, served in many administrations and helped tutor the solicitors general who came and went.

“I was incredibly lucky to have Ed as a deputy when I was S.G.,” Justice Elena Kagan, who served as solicitor general in the Obama administration, said in a statement. “There’s pretty much no legal question he can’t answer. And he has a bone-deep understanding of the traditions and ethos of the S.G.’s office.”

She added: “I learned from him every day, and I did my job far better because he was there. In all the time I’ve spent in government, I’ve never known a finer public servant.”

That was something like a consensus view among former solicitors general. Mr. Waxman, for instance, called Mr. Kneedler “a national treasure.”

Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general in the first Trump administration, said that Mr. Kneedler was “not just a font of knowledge, but of wisdom.”

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the solicitor general in the Biden administration, said that “Ed Kneedler represents the very best of what it means to be a lawyer for the United States.”

Mr. Kneedler’s retirement is part of a wave of departures from the solicitor general’s office, which is quite small. After the solicitor general and a handful of deputies, there are just 16 line lawyers. About half of them are leaving, The Washington Post reported this month.

Mr. Kneedler, 79, did not respond to requests for an interview. When he received an award this month from the University of Virginia’s law school, his alma mater, he said he was “a career civil servant, not in the press if I can avoid it.”

At the ceremony, Mr. Kneedler gave extended remarks, making points that in another era might have seemed unremarkable. These days, they verged on provocative.

Calling himself a “citizen lawyer,” he praised the many federal employees he had worked with, saying he had been impressed by their “compassion and understanding for our country, and dedication to our country.”

He said his office analyzed legal issues with rigor and care, at least in cases on the court’s regular docket. Since Mr. Trump took office in January, the government has filed a torrent of emergency applications on what critics call the court’s shadow docket.

“When we don’t have emergencies like we have a number of now,” Mr. Kneedler said, “we have a very structured decision-making process.”

Leslie Kendrick, the Virginia law school’s dean, asked Mr. Kneedler a few questions, one of which was premised on his office’s “commitment to providing nonpartisan representation for the United States, regardless of cause, regardless of the political leadership of the other two branches.”

Mr. Kneedler did not quite adopt the premise. “We are lawyers for the United States,” he said, “and the administration in office is the ultimate determiner of what the interests of the United States are.”

But he ended his remarks on a hopeful note. “We’re all part of a process that is leading us to a more perfect union,” he said, “which means a union in which we are coming together, not apart.”

Before the standing ovation at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Chief Justice Roberts, himself a veteran of the solicitor general’s office, added what he called a personal note as he spoke to Mr. Kneedler.

“I recall that on two occasions you and I argued on the same side here, me representing a private client and you the United States,” the chief justice said. “We lost each of those cases. I’m sure it was my fault. Mr. Kneedler, thank you for your outstanding service to court and country.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002.

[admin]

A ‘Citizen Lawyer’ Gets a Standing Ovation at the Supreme Court. In a remarkable scene, the justices applauded Edwin S. Kneedler, a government lawyer with a reputation for candor, care and integrity.
by Adam Liptak
Reporting from Washington
The New York Times
April 28, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/28/us/p ... ation.html

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Edwin S. Kneedler in 2008. He joined the Office of the Solicitor General, the elite unit of the Justice Department that represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, in 1979. Credit...Andy Cross/The Denver Post, via Getty Images

After a routine Supreme Court argument on Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked the lawyer who had represented the government to return to the lectern.

“You have just presented your 160th argument before this court, and I understand it is intended to be your last,” the chief justice told the lawyer, Edwin S. Kneedler, who is retiring as a deputy solicitor general. “That is the record for modern times.”

Chief Justice Roberts talked a little more, with affection and high praise, thanking Mr. Kneedler for his “extraordinary care and professionalism.”

Then something remarkable happened. Applause burst out in the courtroom, and that led to a standing ovation for Mr. Kneedler, with the justices joining, too.

“It was a rare moment of unanimity and spontaneous joy from all nine justices on the bench,” said Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard. “They were all beaming.”

Kannon Shanmugam, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer, said it was “one of the most electric moments I’ve ever seen in the courtroom.”

The tribute to Mr. Kneedler’s candor and integrity came against the backdrop of a different kind of courtroom behavior. In the early months of the second Trump administration, its lawyers have been accused of gamesmanship, dishonesty and defiance, and have been fired for providing frank answers to judges.

Mr. Kneedler presented a different model, former colleagues said.

“Ed is the embodiment of the government lawyer ideal — one whose duty of candor to the court and interest in doing justice, not just winning a case, always carried the day,” said Gregory G. Garre, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

Mr. Shanmugam said Mr. Kneedler’s loyalty was to the rule of law. “He would much rather get the law right at the risk of losing,” Mr. Shanmugam said, “than win at the cost of misrepresenting the law.”

Seth P. Waxman, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said Mr. Kneedler was the opposite of a partisan.

“In all the years that I worked with Ed in the Justice Department, I did not know his politics,” Mr. Waxman said.

Mr. Kneedler joined the Office of the Solicitor General, the elite unit of the Justice Department that represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, in 1979, served in many administrations and helped tutor the solicitors general who came and went.

“I was incredibly lucky to have Ed as a deputy when I was S.G.,” Justice Elena Kagan, who served as solicitor general in the Obama administration, said in a statement. “There’s pretty much no legal question he can’t answer. And he has a bone-deep understanding of the traditions and ethos of the S.G.’s office.”

She added: “I learned from him every day, and I did my job far better because he was there. In all the time I’ve spent in government, I’ve never known a finer public servant.”

That was something like a consensus view among former solicitors general. Mr. Waxman, for instance, called Mr. Kneedler “a national treasure.”

Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general in the first Trump administration, said that Mr. Kneedler was “not just a font of knowledge, but of wisdom.”

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the solicitor general in the Biden administration, said that “Ed Kneedler represents the very best of what it means to be a lawyer for the United States.”

Mr. Kneedler’s retirement is part of a wave of departures from the solicitor general’s office, which is quite small. After the solicitor general and a handful of deputies, there are just 16 line lawyers. About half of them are leaving, The Washington Post reported this month.

Mr. Kneedler, 79, did not respond to requests for an interview. When he received an award this month from the University of Virginia’s law school, his alma mater, he said he was “a career civil servant, not in the press if I can avoid it.”

At the ceremony, Mr. Kneedler gave extended remarks, making points that in another era might have seemed unremarkable. These days, they verged on provocative.

Calling himself a “citizen lawyer,” he praised the many federal employees he had worked with, saying he had been impressed by their “compassion and understanding for our country, and dedication to our country.”

He said his office analyzed legal issues with rigor and care, at least in cases on the court’s regular docket. Since Mr. Trump took office in January, the government has filed a torrent of emergency applications on what critics call the court’s shadow docket.

“When we don’t have emergencies like we have a number of now,” Mr. Kneedler said, “we have a very structured decision-making process.”

Leslie Kendrick, the Virginia law school’s dean, asked Mr. Kneedler a few questions, one of which was premised on his office’s “commitment to providing nonpartisan representation for the United States, regardless of cause, regardless of the political leadership of the other two branches.”

Mr. Kneedler did not quite adopt the premise. “We are lawyers for the United States,” he said, “and the administration in office is the ultimate determiner of what the interests of the United States are.”

But he ended his remarks on a hopeful note. “We’re all part of a process that is leading us to a more perfect union,” he said, “which means a union in which we are coming together, not apart.”

Before the standing ovation at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Chief Justice Roberts, himself a veteran of the solicitor general’s office, added what he called a personal note as he spoke to Mr. Kneedler.

“I recall that on two occasions you and I argued on the same side here, me representing a private client and you the United States,” the chief justice said. “We lost each of those cases. I’m sure it was my fault. Mr. Kneedler, thank you for your outstanding service to court and country.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002.

[admin]

US judge in Texas orders release of Venezuelan couple, temporarily blocks deportations
by Jonathan Limehouse
USA TODAY
Sun, April 27, 2025 at 8:05 AM MDT
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-judge-tex ... 23432.html

A federal judge in Texas ruled against deporting Venezuelan immigrants, finding it inappropriate for President Donald Trump to invoke the 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act.

U.S. District Judge David Briones, of El Paso, made the ruling on April 25, and ordered the release of Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia from a federal detention facility in El Paso, a couple accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, according to the court opinion obtained by USA TODAY.

Briones' decision found that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials failed to prove "any lawful basis" indicating why the couple should be detained any longer for an alleged alien enemy violation, according to the judge's opinion.

“There is no doubt the Executive Branch’s unprecedented peacetime use of wartime power has caused chaos and uncertainty for individual petitions as well as the judicial branch in how to manage and evaluate the Executive’s claims of Tren de Aragua membership, and the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as a whole,” wrote Briones, who was appointed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.


Senior U.S. District Judge David Briones spoke following the unveiling of his painting at the U.S. courthouse in Downtown El Paso.

Couple lived in Washington, D.C. area since 2022

When the couple entered the United States Oct. 13, 2022, in El Paso, they were initially detained by immigration officials, according to the court document. They were then arrested and "accused of being aliens to the United States," a criminal complaint against the couple says.

The court opinion states that the couple was paroled the following day and lived in D.C. with their three children after being granted temporary protected status. They were notified on April 1, 2025, that their status was terminated due to their alleged "association with a Foreign Terrorist Organization," the document continues.

Briones' ruling says the allegations against the couple are based on “multiple levels of hearsay, hidden within declarations of declarants who have no personal knowledge about the facts they are attesting to.”

In a statement emailed April 26 to USA TODAY, the couple's attorney, Chris Benoit, said: "We are thrilled that Cesar and Norelia will finally be able to go home and be reunited with their children."

"We are grateful for the Court's careful consideration of all the issues and delighted to see this thoughtful, well-reasoned decision ordering their release," the attorney continued. "There was no basis for any of the accusations the government was making against them, and the ordeal they have been through is tremendous."

Trump invoked Alien Enemies Act in March

The couple's attorneys filed multiple petitions to challenge the legality of their clients' imprisonment, including in a Virginia federal court, which led to their release on April 16. The couple was detained by ICE agents at the El Paso International Airport, following the judge's ruling to allow them to return to Washington, D.C., according to Briones' opinion.

“Cesar and Norelia have now gone in front of four different judges, none of whom thought they should be detained," Benoit said in his statement. "They have deep ties to their community. They have three minor children. They have Temporary Protected Status. And they have been living peacefully in the United States since 2022."

Briones' ruling comes after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15 in an attempt to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua criminal organization. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court paused Trump's administration from deporting Venezuelan men in immigration custody after their lawyers argued that they would be removed from the country without the due process mandated by the justices.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to allow the deportations, with Solicitor General John Sauer saying in a filing on April 19: "Those aliens are Venezuelan nationals who are unlawfully present in the United States and subject to removal under other authorities, but who the government has determined are members of the foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua and thus subject to removal pursuant to the AEA. This Court should deny applicants’ extraordinary request.”

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Texas federal judge blocks deportation of Venezuelan couple