SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, speaks during a town hall event at Lebanon Middle School on November 9, 2019 in Lebanon, New Hampshire. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Providing a two-year timeline of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's remarks about Medicare for All, progressive advocacy group Justice Democrats on Wednesday accused the South Bend, Indiana mayor of abandoning support for single-payer healthcare in favor of an incremental half-measure after realizing "he could raise tons of cash from corporate executives in the pharmaceutical and insurance industry."
Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, said in a statement that Buttigieg "has no credibility" to criticize fellow 2020 contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for being "evasive" on Medicare for All "given how far his position has shifted over the past two years and how much money he's been taking from Big Pharma and insurance executives."
"Buttigieg was for Medicare for All before he was against it. What happened this summer that made him abandon Medicare for All? He realized he was never going to beat Warren and Sanders as a progressive."
--Waleed Shahid, Justice Democrats
According to a Business Insider analysis published in August, Buttigieg--who is now running on a public option plan called "Medicare for All Who Want It"--has received more campaign cash from the healthcare industry than any other 2020 presidential candidate aside from President Donald Trump.
Shahid suggested Tuesday that industry cash played a role in Buttigieg's decision to ditch Medicare for All and go on the attack against the popular proposal in campaign ads and the presidential debates.
"Buttigieg was for Medicare for All before he was against it," said Shahid. "What happened this summer that made him abandon Medicare for All? He realized he was never going to beat Warren and Sanders as a progressive. He got scared of the fight. He realized he could raise tons of cash from corporate executives in the pharmaceutical and insurance industry."
The Buttigieg campaign pushed back against Justice Democrats' criticism on Twitter, insisting that the South Bend mayor expressed support for Medicare for All when it was "not synonymous" with the single-payer system proposed by Sanders' Medicare for All legislation.
Shahid said that is "not true," pointing to an op-ed Buttigieg wrote in 2004 expressing support for single-payer.
"The meaning [of Medicare for All] hasn't changed," said Shahid. "Him cozying up to the industry has."
As part of a press release Wednesday morning, in an attempt to demonstrate how dramatically the mayor's position on Medicare for All has shifted, Justice Democrats offered the following timeline of Buttigieg's healthcare remarks dating back to early 2018:
02/17/2018. Buttigieg is befuddled as to why anyone would ever question his support for Medicare for All.
\u201c@pplsummit Buh? When/where have you ever heard me oppose Medicare for All?\u201d— The People's Summit (@The People's Summit) 151882719002/18/2018. Buttigieg says he supports single-payer, Medicare for All. Buttigieg wrote in response to those questioning his commitment to Medicare for All: "[I] do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All" pointing to an op-ed to demonstrate he's supported it since 2004. While Buttigieg's campaign says that Medicare for All in 2018 didn't mean single-payer and transitioning away from a private insurance system, the op-ed he points to explicitly mentions Buttigieg's support for "single-payer."
2/14/2019. Buttigieg calls single-payer, Medicare for All a "compromise position" and Obamacare a "conservative proposal." Buttigieg was pressed on MSNBC by Steve Rattner on his position on Medicare for All during the early stages of his campaign. Buttigieg says: "ACA, which was a conservative proposal, came to be characterized as left-wing by a very disciplined right-wing message machine. What is Medicare for All? It's a compromise. In the UK, you've got national health care. That would be the true left-wing position. The true right-wing position is free for all, all corporate--the compromise position is a single-payer system where you have private doctors but a public payer."
4/1/2019. Buttigieg spoke in glowing terms about Medicare for All and called the ACA a "conservative tweak" during a podcast interview with Ezra Klein. "By the Obama years, we're doing a basically conservative tweak to our healthcare system...cooked up in the Heritage Foundation and piloted by a Republican governor...Single-payer, which is very much a compromise position between nationalized medicine and fully private payer and provider...that's the middle ground. Only now are we even beginning to talk about it as something Democrats can embrace."
7/19/2019. Buttigieg rakes in money from pharmaceutical and health insurance executives. Among Democratic candidates, Buttigieg was second to Joe Biden in terms of pharmaceutical and health insurance donations. His list of donors includes executives from Aetna, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Indiana's Eli Lilly & Co.
9/19/2019. Buttigieg shifts tactics and goes on the attack: "Anyone who lets the words Medicare for All escape their lips should tell us just as plainly how they plan to get there."
9/19/2019. Buttigieg goes after Warren: "Warren is known for being straightforward and was extremely evasive when asked that question, and we've seen that repeatedly."
10/15/2019. Buttigieg attacks Warren at the debate over Medicare for All.
10/25/2019: Top lobbying affairs official for pharmaceutical giant Merck hosts fundraiser for Buttigieg.
10/25/2019: Facing criticism over his flip-flop, Buttigieg misleadingly argues that the meaning of Medicare for All has changed. "Only in the last few months did it become the case that Medicare for All was defined by politicians to mean ending private insurance, and I've never believed that that's the right pathway."
11/12/2019: Buttigieg's campaign claims he only ever supported Medicare for All as a "goal." This is a deceptive move that former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has also used. This deflection reminds one of something Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said soon after being elected. "One of the things that gets told in order to settle us down is 'I agree with you. We have the same goals.' It's great that everyone thinks these issues are important. We need to make them urgent."Since the summer, Buttigieg's campaign has also raised a notable amount of donations from the pharmaceutical and insurance industry and held fundraisers with their executives.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Providing a two-year timeline of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's remarks about Medicare for All, progressive advocacy group Justice Democrats on Wednesday accused the South Bend, Indiana mayor of abandoning support for single-payer healthcare in favor of an incremental half-measure after realizing "he could raise tons of cash from corporate executives in the pharmaceutical and insurance industry."
Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, said in a statement that Buttigieg "has no credibility" to criticize fellow 2020 contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for being "evasive" on Medicare for All "given how far his position has shifted over the past two years and how much money he's been taking from Big Pharma and insurance executives."
"Buttigieg was for Medicare for All before he was against it. What happened this summer that made him abandon Medicare for All? He realized he was never going to beat Warren and Sanders as a progressive."
--Waleed Shahid, Justice Democrats
According to a Business Insider analysis published in August, Buttigieg--who is now running on a public option plan called "Medicare for All Who Want It"--has received more campaign cash from the healthcare industry than any other 2020 presidential candidate aside from President Donald Trump.
Shahid suggested Tuesday that industry cash played a role in Buttigieg's decision to ditch Medicare for All and go on the attack against the popular proposal in campaign ads and the presidential debates.
"Buttigieg was for Medicare for All before he was against it," said Shahid. "What happened this summer that made him abandon Medicare for All? He realized he was never going to beat Warren and Sanders as a progressive. He got scared of the fight. He realized he could raise tons of cash from corporate executives in the pharmaceutical and insurance industry."
The Buttigieg campaign pushed back against Justice Democrats' criticism on Twitter, insisting that the South Bend mayor expressed support for Medicare for All when it was "not synonymous" with the single-payer system proposed by Sanders' Medicare for All legislation.
Shahid said that is "not true," pointing to an op-ed Buttigieg wrote in 2004 expressing support for single-payer.
"The meaning [of Medicare for All] hasn't changed," said Shahid. "Him cozying up to the industry has."
As part of a press release Wednesday morning, in an attempt to demonstrate how dramatically the mayor's position on Medicare for All has shifted, Justice Democrats offered the following timeline of Buttigieg's healthcare remarks dating back to early 2018:
02/17/2018. Buttigieg is befuddled as to why anyone would ever question his support for Medicare for All.
\u201c@pplsummit Buh? When/where have you ever heard me oppose Medicare for All?\u201d— The People's Summit (@The People's Summit) 151882719002/18/2018. Buttigieg says he supports single-payer, Medicare for All. Buttigieg wrote in response to those questioning his commitment to Medicare for All: "[I] do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All" pointing to an op-ed to demonstrate he's supported it since 2004. While Buttigieg's campaign says that Medicare for All in 2018 didn't mean single-payer and transitioning away from a private insurance system, the op-ed he points to explicitly mentions Buttigieg's support for "single-payer."
2/14/2019. Buttigieg calls single-payer, Medicare for All a "compromise position" and Obamacare a "conservative proposal." Buttigieg was pressed on MSNBC by Steve Rattner on his position on Medicare for All during the early stages of his campaign. Buttigieg says: "ACA, which was a conservative proposal, came to be characterized as left-wing by a very disciplined right-wing message machine. What is Medicare for All? It's a compromise. In the UK, you've got national health care. That would be the true left-wing position. The true right-wing position is free for all, all corporate--the compromise position is a single-payer system where you have private doctors but a public payer."
4/1/2019. Buttigieg spoke in glowing terms about Medicare for All and called the ACA a "conservative tweak" during a podcast interview with Ezra Klein. "By the Obama years, we're doing a basically conservative tweak to our healthcare system...cooked up in the Heritage Foundation and piloted by a Republican governor...Single-payer, which is very much a compromise position between nationalized medicine and fully private payer and provider...that's the middle ground. Only now are we even beginning to talk about it as something Democrats can embrace."
7/19/2019. Buttigieg rakes in money from pharmaceutical and health insurance executives. Among Democratic candidates, Buttigieg was second to Joe Biden in terms of pharmaceutical and health insurance donations. His list of donors includes executives from Aetna, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Indiana's Eli Lilly & Co.
9/19/2019. Buttigieg shifts tactics and goes on the attack: "Anyone who lets the words Medicare for All escape their lips should tell us just as plainly how they plan to get there."
9/19/2019. Buttigieg goes after Warren: "Warren is known for being straightforward and was extremely evasive when asked that question, and we've seen that repeatedly."
10/15/2019. Buttigieg attacks Warren at the debate over Medicare for All.
10/25/2019: Top lobbying affairs official for pharmaceutical giant Merck hosts fundraiser for Buttigieg.
10/25/2019: Facing criticism over his flip-flop, Buttigieg misleadingly argues that the meaning of Medicare for All has changed. "Only in the last few months did it become the case that Medicare for All was defined by politicians to mean ending private insurance, and I've never believed that that's the right pathway."
11/12/2019: Buttigieg's campaign claims he only ever supported Medicare for All as a "goal." This is a deceptive move that former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has also used. This deflection reminds one of something Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said soon after being elected. "One of the things that gets told in order to settle us down is 'I agree with you. We have the same goals.' It's great that everyone thinks these issues are important. We need to make them urgent."Since the summer, Buttigieg's campaign has also raised a notable amount of donations from the pharmaceutical and insurance industry and held fundraisers with their executives.
Providing a two-year timeline of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's remarks about Medicare for All, progressive advocacy group Justice Democrats on Wednesday accused the South Bend, Indiana mayor of abandoning support for single-payer healthcare in favor of an incremental half-measure after realizing "he could raise tons of cash from corporate executives in the pharmaceutical and insurance industry."
Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, said in a statement that Buttigieg "has no credibility" to criticize fellow 2020 contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for being "evasive" on Medicare for All "given how far his position has shifted over the past two years and how much money he's been taking from Big Pharma and insurance executives."
"Buttigieg was for Medicare for All before he was against it. What happened this summer that made him abandon Medicare for All? He realized he was never going to beat Warren and Sanders as a progressive."
--Waleed Shahid, Justice Democrats
According to a Business Insider analysis published in August, Buttigieg--who is now running on a public option plan called "Medicare for All Who Want It"--has received more campaign cash from the healthcare industry than any other 2020 presidential candidate aside from President Donald Trump.
Shahid suggested Tuesday that industry cash played a role in Buttigieg's decision to ditch Medicare for All and go on the attack against the popular proposal in campaign ads and the presidential debates.
"Buttigieg was for Medicare for All before he was against it," said Shahid. "What happened this summer that made him abandon Medicare for All? He realized he was never going to beat Warren and Sanders as a progressive. He got scared of the fight. He realized he could raise tons of cash from corporate executives in the pharmaceutical and insurance industry."
The Buttigieg campaign pushed back against Justice Democrats' criticism on Twitter, insisting that the South Bend mayor expressed support for Medicare for All when it was "not synonymous" with the single-payer system proposed by Sanders' Medicare for All legislation.
Shahid said that is "not true," pointing to an op-ed Buttigieg wrote in 2004 expressing support for single-payer.
"The meaning [of Medicare for All] hasn't changed," said Shahid. "Him cozying up to the industry has."
As part of a press release Wednesday morning, in an attempt to demonstrate how dramatically the mayor's position on Medicare for All has shifted, Justice Democrats offered the following timeline of Buttigieg's healthcare remarks dating back to early 2018:
02/17/2018. Buttigieg is befuddled as to why anyone would ever question his support for Medicare for All.
\u201c@pplsummit Buh? When/where have you ever heard me oppose Medicare for All?\u201d— The People's Summit (@The People's Summit) 151882719002/18/2018. Buttigieg says he supports single-payer, Medicare for All. Buttigieg wrote in response to those questioning his commitment to Medicare for All: "[I] do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All" pointing to an op-ed to demonstrate he's supported it since 2004. While Buttigieg's campaign says that Medicare for All in 2018 didn't mean single-payer and transitioning away from a private insurance system, the op-ed he points to explicitly mentions Buttigieg's support for "single-payer."
2/14/2019. Buttigieg calls single-payer, Medicare for All a "compromise position" and Obamacare a "conservative proposal." Buttigieg was pressed on MSNBC by Steve Rattner on his position on Medicare for All during the early stages of his campaign. Buttigieg says: "ACA, which was a conservative proposal, came to be characterized as left-wing by a very disciplined right-wing message machine. What is Medicare for All? It's a compromise. In the UK, you've got national health care. That would be the true left-wing position. The true right-wing position is free for all, all corporate--the compromise position is a single-payer system where you have private doctors but a public payer."
4/1/2019. Buttigieg spoke in glowing terms about Medicare for All and called the ACA a "conservative tweak" during a podcast interview with Ezra Klein. "By the Obama years, we're doing a basically conservative tweak to our healthcare system...cooked up in the Heritage Foundation and piloted by a Republican governor...Single-payer, which is very much a compromise position between nationalized medicine and fully private payer and provider...that's the middle ground. Only now are we even beginning to talk about it as something Democrats can embrace."
7/19/2019. Buttigieg rakes in money from pharmaceutical and health insurance executives. Among Democratic candidates, Buttigieg was second to Joe Biden in terms of pharmaceutical and health insurance donations. His list of donors includes executives from Aetna, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Indiana's Eli Lilly & Co.
9/19/2019. Buttigieg shifts tactics and goes on the attack: "Anyone who lets the words Medicare for All escape their lips should tell us just as plainly how they plan to get there."
9/19/2019. Buttigieg goes after Warren: "Warren is known for being straightforward and was extremely evasive when asked that question, and we've seen that repeatedly."
10/15/2019. Buttigieg attacks Warren at the debate over Medicare for All.
10/25/2019: Top lobbying affairs official for pharmaceutical giant Merck hosts fundraiser for Buttigieg.
10/25/2019: Facing criticism over his flip-flop, Buttigieg misleadingly argues that the meaning of Medicare for All has changed. "Only in the last few months did it become the case that Medicare for All was defined by politicians to mean ending private insurance, and I've never believed that that's the right pathway."
11/12/2019: Buttigieg's campaign claims he only ever supported Medicare for All as a "goal." This is a deceptive move that former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has also used. This deflection reminds one of something Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said soon after being elected. "One of the things that gets told in order to settle us down is 'I agree with you. We have the same goals.' It's great that everyone thinks these issues are important. We need to make them urgent."Since the summer, Buttigieg's campaign has also raised a notable amount of donations from the pharmaceutical and insurance industry and held fundraisers with their executives.
"The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight," said one state Democrat.
Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.
Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.
"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.
"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.
Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observer reported Friday.
As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.
Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.
Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
Reminder: From my legal and partisan sources, this ultimately gets decided based on how fed courts address military and overseas voters who didn't provide photo ID (and were expressly advised before election that they didn't need to). Why it matters: andersonalerts.substack.com/p/nc-supreme...
[image or embed]
— Bryan Anderson (@bryanranderson.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM
North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."
"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."
Phillips continued:
Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution.
If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.
"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."
"How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are," said one lawyer.
A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the return of a Maryland resident who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, according to The Associated Press.
Prior to issuing the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia "an illegal act."
The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, gave the Trump administration end of the day of the day on Monday to bring him back to the United States.
Supporters outside the courtroom cheered as the judge handed down her order, according to The Washington Post.
Responding to the ruling on social media, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a big win. Now Trump must comply with the judge's order."
Immigration lawyer Ava Benach wrote: "The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are."
The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are.
[image or embed]
— avabenach.bsky.social (@avabenach.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of people the administration expelled in mid-March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador after targeting them for alleged gang ties.
In a court papers filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting field office director admitted that the removal of Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was an error."
Abrego Garcia was deported despite the fact that in 2019, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to his native El Salvador because he would likely face gang persecution there.
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed."
The latest U.S. agency in the crosshairs of billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is reportedly the Federal Trade Commission, an already-understaffed department tasked with preventing monopolistic practices and shielding consumers from corporate abuses.
Axios reported Friday that at least two DOGE staffers "now have offices at" the FTC. According to The Verge, two DOGE members "were spotted" at the agency's building this week and "are now listed in the FTC's internal directory."
The Verge noted that the FTC is "a fairly lean agency with fewer than 1,200 employees," a number that the Trump administration has already cut into with the firing of some of the department's consumer protection and antitrust staff.
At least two of Musk's companies, Tesla and X, have faced scrutiny in recent years from the FTC, which is now under the leadership of Trump appointee Andrew Ferguson, who previously pledged to roll back former chair Lina Khan's anti-monopoly legacy.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, which referred to the operatives as Musk's "minions," said Friday that "DOGE is yet again raiding a federal watchdog tasked with protecting working Americans from Wall Street and Big Tech."
"The FTC has worked to stop monopolistic mergers that would have led to higher grocery prices and is now gearing up to go to court against Meta's social media monopoly," said Peterson-Cassin. "It's no surprise that at this moment, while the economy is in freefall and fraud is on the rise, DOGE is choosing to raid the federal watchdog that protects everyday Americans and threatens corporate monopolies and grifters."
News of DOGE staffers' infiltration of the FTC came as Trump's sweeping new tariffs continued to cause global economic turmoil and heightened concerns that companies in the U.S. will use the tariffs as a new excuse to jack up prices and pad their bottom lines.
Ferguson pledged in a social media post Thursday that under his leadership, the FTC "will be watching closely" to ensure companies don't view Trump's tariffs "as a green light for price fixing or any other unlawful behavior."
But Trump has hobbled the agency—and prompted yet another legal fight—by firing its two Democratic commissioners, a move that sparked fury and has already impacted the FTC's ability to pursue cases against large corporations.
Peterson-Cassin said Friday that "the only winners" of DOGE's targeting of the FTC "are Trump's billionaire besties like [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg and especially Musk, who now stands to gain access to confidential financial information about every company ever investigated by the FTC, including the auto manufacturers, aerospace firms, internet providers, tech companies, and banks that directly compete with his own companies."
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed," Peterson-Cassin added.