#graft fraud and corruption

[sawbuckplus]

[sawbuckplus]

of course it did.

Graft, fraud, and corruption cost money.

[jangillman]

[unicornheadnebula]

The Tammany Machine And The Evolution of Machine Politics

The “Tammany Machine,” also known as Tammany Hall, was a powerful and notorious political organization that operated in New York City for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It played a significant role in shaping the city’s politics and had a reputation for corruption, patronage, and machine politics. Here are some key points about the Tammany Machine: Origins: Tammany Hall was founded…

[yayasvalveplay]

Hear me out, please.

Instead of Optimus becoming an elite guard, he became a lawyer instead. Now, I will admit that I should have done futher research and get a better understanding before submitting this idea. But I believe he could be a labor lawyer, who specializes in legal matters related to employment and labor law, advising and representing both employers and employees on workplace issues. Maybe like... the miners?

If you want it to fit the theme of "I hate tfa Magnus," Optimus can become an Anti-Corruption Lawyer: specializes in legal matters related to corruption, including investigating, prosecuting, and defending cases involving bribery, fraud, and other corrupt practices, often working within the framework of laws like the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Inspiration for this idea: Legally Blonde

Bonus: Optimus as a criminal defense lawyer. What if Megatron does get defeated like in the end of season 3, but it was someone else. And during his trial, I'm guessing they'll still give him a lawyer or something for some reason, and that's where Optimus is dragged in. This scenario can be named "Warlord's Laywer"

Op saying fuck you ultra magnus in the funniest way possible becoming a lawyer for those apposed, and more or less Decepticons. And this man wins the cases most of the time.

Op would be considered a decepticon sympathizer but ops counterpoint would always be "I've got the facts I needed and presented them as they were."

[sawbuckplus]

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

You know how in 2020 it was the woke thing to say, "if you're more upset about how they're protesting than what they're protesting against, you're the problem." Well, we need to appropriate that phrasing for ourselves; "if you're more mad about how DOGE is exposing corruption and fraud than you are about the things they're exposing, you're the problem."

[mariacallous]

When great changes are afoot, we look for a user manual. There will be new patterns of living and new expectations for the future. The rapidly developing corruption landscape in the United States will be no exception.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s election last November and the accelerated institutional and personnel changes since his inauguration have forced Americans into new political territory. In particular, anti-corruption institutions and norms are unraveling. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered the Justice Department to prioritize cases related to criminal cartels and closed down Task Force KleptoCapture and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative; Trump himself ordered a pause in new investigations or enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for six months.

While those developments focus on U.S. businesses engaging in corruption overseas rather than at home, other anti-corruption norms are also coming under rapid and significant pressure. The Trump administration has fired at least 17 inspectors general—offices installed after the Watergate scandal as an independent check on mismanagement and abuse of power within government agencies—as well as several senior Justice Department employees. The president also issued an executive order that undermined the independence of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission, both of which have important roles in detecting and punishing corruption.

For some, these changes go beyond the usual shifts in policy that come with a new administration. They seem to require a new vocabulary. For example, few people had heard of the word kakistocracy (a society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens) until it was the Economist’s 2024 word of the year. Pundits have labeled the tech executives with the best seats at Trump’s inauguration as America’s new oligarchs; in his farewell address to the nation, President Joe Biden issued a warning that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America.” And in February, Sen. Bernie Sanders deployed a more dire descriptor still when he said the Trump administration was “moving this country very rapidly toward a kleptocracy.” What do these terms mean, both definitionally and in practice? And which, if any, can be accurately said to apply to the United States’ oncoming political order?

The first definition required is that of corruption itself. Corruption is the building block of regimes considered antithetical to Americans and the American tradition yet has been frequently invoked across the political spectrum of late. “I campaigned on the fact that I said government is corrupt—and it is very corrupt,” Trump said in an appearance with advisor Elon Musk at the White House in February. Indeed, rooting out graft in the so-called “deep state” bureaucracy is one of Musk’s stated goals for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), set up via executive order in January. Among other accusations, Musk has said his team at DOGE discovered “known fraudsters” receiving payments from the federal government and that some people working in the bureaucracy, including at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), had been taking “kickbacks.”

Few would argue that fraud and waste are entirely absent from federal government spending. Last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion a year to fraud and that agencies had made about $2.7 trillion in improper payments over the last 20 years. The figures are huge, as with any organization spending more than $6 trillion annually. But do the documented instances of fraud in the U.S. government rise to the level of corruption?

While there is no universal definition of corruption, one of the most common, as defined by the advocacy group Transparency International, is “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” For Musk to use this term in its proper sense in regards to USAID, for instance, he would have to demonstrate how USAID employees or contractors used the authorities granted to them in order to gain private benefits, such as by taking bribes or gifts in return for granting lucrative contracts. Receiving a duly authorized government paycheck for implementing policies within one’s job description does not count as “abuse of entrusted power” or “private gain” and thus would not qualify as corruption.

There are a variety of flavors of corruption. Currently, the most concerning kind is grand corruption. Grand corruption is when public institutions are co-opted by networks of ruling elites to steal public resources for their own private gain. It involves a wide variety of activities including bribery, extortion, nepotism, favoritism, cronyism, judicial fraud, accounting fraud, electoral fraud, public service fraud, embezzlement, influence peddling, and conflicts of interest.

In dismantling systems that protect against it, there are fears that the Trump administration could be opening the door to grand corruption in the future. Rep. Mark Pocan has criticized Musk’s situation as a special government employee with federal contracts—at least 52 are ongoing, with seven government agencies—as “ripe for corruption” and plans to introduce a bill aimed at banning special government employees like Musk, who gave at least $277 million to support Trump and other Republicans in last year’s election, from obtaining such contracts. In a New York Times op-ed in February, five former Treasury secretaries expressed concern about “political actors” from DOGE gaining access to the U.S. payment system. This access, they wrote, endangered the security of a system previously handled exclusively by nonpartisan civil servants in order to prevent individual or partisan enrichment. (Musk told podcast host Joe Rogan in February that DOGE employees “go through the same vetting process that those federal employees went through.”)

In contrast to grand corruption is the petty kind, which citizens encounter when asked for bribes or other favors in places such as hospitals, schools, and police departments. While pop culture is rife with storylines of corrupt cops and civil servants, such as in The Sopranos, most Americans have not experienced having to slip a little something extra to get their driver’s license renewed or a child registered in the local public school. But, as the old saying goes, a fish rots from the head down. When grand corruption increases, lower-level officials may feel even more emboldened to demand bribes in ways new to many Americans.

Kleptocracy takes corruption—even grand corruption—to a whole new level. There is not one specific definition of kleptocracy beyond that of “rule by thieves.” As with grand corruption, a kleptocracy involves tightly integrated networks of elites in political, business, cultural, social, and criminal institutions engaging in bribery, extortion, and other destructive actions. But additional characteristics make kleptocracy stand out even above grand corruption.

First, the grand corruption in a kleptocracy is systemic, deeply networked, and self-reinforcing. Setting up a complex and highly lucrative corruption scheme is one thing, but transforming institutions to keep multiple streams of grand corruption through multiple networks ongoing for years or decades is a whole different level of kleptocratic wherewithal.

Second, the consequences of a kleptocracy will distort long-term political and socioeconomic outcomes. While grand corruption schemes may amass elites billions of dollars, if those occur in a large enough economy, they may not necessarily impact the average citizen much. In a kleptocracy, the distortions are so massive that average citizens cannot miss the impacts on their lives.

Third, in non-kleptocracies, grand corruption scandals may shock the conscience and grab headlines because they are not the norm. Such grand corruption in a kleptocracy is not an aberration but instead the unifying purpose and core function of the state. The scandals come so fast, so widespread, and so large that many citizens feel powerless to respond.

Key elites—referred to popularly as oligarchs—are instrumental in a kleptocracy. Oligarchy is derived from the ancient Greek words oligoi (“few”) and arkhein (“to rule”). Aristotle described oligarchy as “when men of property have the government in their hands.” Per Aristotle’s definition, to count as an oligarchy, the wealthy must be able to influence the government so to protect their wealth and power at the expense of the larger population.

While the term is most associated with the hugely wealthy insiders who are part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, some scholars argue that those described as Russian “oligarchs” do not technically meet the definition because while these individuals clearly have plenty of money, most do not seem to have much actual influence over domestic or foreign affairs. Scholar Ilya Zaslavskiy instead refers to them as “kremligarchs” to signify their huge wealth but lack of actual political influence.

Democratic kleptocracies offer a different model of political power again. In Hungary, the ruling Fidesz party under Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been able to consolidate control over the parliament, courts, bureaucracy, and the media. Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman has summed up Hungary’s system as an “embrace of nihilistic corruption.” Companies linked to Orban’s family and others in his inner circle receive highly preferential lucrative opportunities for government procurement contracts, for example, while those on the outside find their ability to operate limited. Meanwhile, even though Hungary is in the heart of Europe, the press there is highly curtailed, to the point that one of its last independent radio stations was forced off air in 2021.

All kleptocracies are unique, and an American kleptocracy, were it to eventuate, would function differently from those in places such as Hungary, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or Venezuela. Nonetheless, kleptocracies share common characteristics, and there are signs a uniquely American form is already emerging.

Seeking to categorize how kleptocracy operates in different countries, scholar Michael Johnston has identified four major syndromes of corruption. The United States falls into the bucket of what he calls Influence Markets—the world’s democratic good-governance leaders.

No country considered an Influence Market has ever become a full-fledged kleptocracy. In an Influence Market, petty corruption is rare, and cases of grand corruption can lead to jail time, new legislation, and electoral losses, though there is often significant controversy over what should be considered legitimate lobbying or campaign contributions versus outright corruption. These countries display strong democratic norms, protect personal freedoms, advocate for human rights, and have independent courts and other enforcement agencies. The state is administered through a relatively clean, professional, and apolitical civil service.

The United States is the preeminent Influence Market country in the international system. It boasts the world’s reserve currency and one of its strongest economies and biggest militaries. Anti-corruption institutions and norms—as understood at the time—were written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers or instituted shortly thereafter, including its system of checks and balances, emoluments clauses, Bill of Rights, and the requirements for representatives to live in the districts and states that they represent. In 1977, the United States even became the first country to make it illegal to bribe another country’s politicians, via the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which Trump has ordered a pause on enforcing.

There is no historical model for what happens when a great power that is also an Influence Market becomes a kleptocracy. Should the United States fall into kleptocracy, a few winners will benefit greatly. To be sure, inequality is not new, and several studies have shown that social mobility in the United States has been declining for years. Even so, a tilt toward kleptocracy and fewer checks and balances would exacerbate an alarming trend line. In 2023, there were 1,050 billionaires in the United States, with a combined wealth of almost $5 trillion. In the third quarter of 2024, the top 1 percent of Americans held $49.23 trillion in household wealth, while the bottom 50 percent held only $3.89 trillion. Under an American kleptocracy, the number of billionaires would likely grow along with the already disproportionate wealth of the top 1 percent.

In a kleptocracy, preferential policy access and outright grand corruption for oligarchs mean that procurement prices rise, public services are further privatized, and nitpicky fees abound. Thus, more public roads turn into toll roads, and businesses from airlines to hotels to credit cards can pile on the fees and surcharges. The Trump administration’s attempt to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the cessation of its investigative work, is a possible harbinger.

As oligarchs can further avoid taxation, taxes fall more heavily on the poor and middle classes. Tariffs typify this trend, since they are taxes paid primarily by the consumer, not the supplier. Price increases from tariffs on food will hit the poor especially hard; the lowest income quintile of U.S. households spent 33 percent of their after-tax income on food in 2023, compared with the richest quintile, which spent only 8 percent.

Social programs—especially for a nation’s poorest citizens—are increasingly curtailed, underfunded, or cut entirely in a kleptocracy. The recently passed House budget proposes to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which primarily benefited the wealthy, aiming to cut $2 trillion in spending over 10 years, including $880 billion in cuts to be determined by the House committee that oversees Medicare and Medicaid funding. Recent comments by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, immensely wealthy himself, that Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are “wrong” is a further worrying sign. Trump would not be the first Republican president to muse about cutting these programs, but early moves—including the proposal to slash hundreds of Veterans Affairs contracts—suggest that this administration’s cuts may be more deep and widespread than its predecessors’.

Politicized institutions, especially law enforcement, are necessary to keep the kleptocracy going. As former Peruvian dictator Óscar Benavides put it, “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” Venezuelan and Russian companies, for example, know that being on the wrong side of the government brings the tax police, devastating tax bills, and bankruptcy, making the weaponization of the IRS a threat to all. This was something that President Richard Nixon understood when he provided his IRS commissioner an “enemies list” of some 200 Democrats for auditing, with the intent that they would be investigated and some even put in jail. The IRS commissioner had the list locked away rather than conducting the audits. The recent departure of the acting IRS commissioner and the firing of 6,700 probationary workers during tax season, as well as DOGE’s efforts to gain access to IRS and other taxpayer information, are also warning signs of such politicization.

Looking forward, other executive orders and policies, if implemented, could further push the United States toward kleptocracy. Most crucial is Schedule F (now called Schedule Policy/Career), laid out in October 2020 by the first Trump administration. It was rescinded by Biden and then reestablished via an executive order on the first day of Trump’s second term. This executive order allows civil servants to be categorized into an employment grouping with fewer job protections, undermining 150 years of civil service reform. Implementing it would return the United States to the spoils system prevalent in the 19th century.

The result of these various executive orders and directives, questionable personnel choices, a hamstrung Justice Department, undermined independent agencies, and the defunding and defanging of the civil service is that those who want to morph U.S. federal institutions for their own personal benefit are in positions of power to do so. Moreover, the rapid-fire initiation of all of these efforts makes it harder for states, courts, civil society, and journalists to respond effectively; this is former Trump advisor Steve Bannon’s famous edict to “flood the zone with shit” in action.

Journalists in a kleptocracy are further constricted because libel laws may be skewed to make it easier for those in power to mount strategic lawsuits against media, civil society, or even ordinary citizens who might report on malfeasance to silence them. Musk and the administration’s response to reporting that identifies DOGE employees is an early example of this. The narrative can be controlled in other ways, too. While Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s ownership of the Washington Post or Musk’s ownership of X gets the most attention, conservative ownership of local media stations throughout the United States, such as Sinclair’s network of nearly 200, makes them an important means to shape the pro-Trump message. In a globalized world, high quality—and often highbrow—media will remain available to those with the money, time, and willingness to access it. As Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman note in their book Spin Dictators, the availability of this media serves to prove that the regime is not actually that authoritarian while also making scapegoats of globalist elites who read the international, often paywalled, press.

Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited dark money to flow to federal election campaigns, what constitutes “corruption” for legal purposes has been very sharply curtailed. The most disturbing recent decision, however, is Trump v. United States (2024), which has given the president a remarkable amount of immunity so long as his actions are in some way linked to official acts. It also limits what presidential actions can even be investigated. Combined with the ability to pardon those involved in federal cases, Trump and any future president have a great deal of legal leeway to bend the U.S. government to their will.

Trump’s pardon of cryptocurrency cult hero Ross Ulbricht—who ran a darknet drug market and had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole—and the administration’s possible pressure on Romania to allow the departure of Andrew and Tristan Tate—under criminal investigation there for human trafficking and money laundering, among other charges—are ominous signs. When asked, Trump said he knew nothing about Romania’s decision to lift the travel ban. (The fact that Florida’s attorney general has opened an investigation into the recently repatriated brothers, who deny the charges, is more promising.) Trump’s executive orders targeting two law firms, one of which represents former special counsel Jack Smith, further serve to weaken the rule of law.

Despite promises to free up business, kleptocracies must intervene substantially in the economy. After all, one cannot ensure that economic benefits go to favored groups if the market is allowed to do its thing. In a well-governed country, for example, a procurement contract goes to the firm with the best bid and that has a track record of being able to do the work. But in a kleptocracy, most procurement contracts go to those in the right network or who paid the right bribes, not to the most qualified.

The best documented example of kleptocratic state capture of an economy is in South Africa, where a judicial commission found that former President Jacob Zuma and other state officials worked with the Gupta family to ensure that their companies received lucrative contracts with the government and state-owned companies while employing members and friends of Zuma’s family. The massively overpriced contracts sucked tens of billions of dollars out of the economy and left a large hole in the federal budget. Among the detritus of the corruption and rot left over since Zuma’s resignation in 2018 has been the mangling of the country’s electricity grid, which in turn has undermined broader economic growth.

The United States is nowhere near South Africa in this regard. And it has often fallen short of its ideals in the past without surrendering its status as a liberal democracy. Yet Americans can gauge whether they are descending into kleptocracy simply by observing whether their net worth and social network increasingly determine their rights and access to services.

Because the United States was already the most unequal country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, life for the wealthy in a kleptocracy would largely carry on as it has before—or may even improve. They can squat behind their private security and their walled communities. Their children can attend high-quality private schools and can play tennis and soccer at private sports clubs. Medical insurance and health care are already available mostly to those who can pay or who have an employer willing to do so. Some wealthy communities will be able to maintain high-quality policing, fire departments, and other social services. For those who cannot pay or who do not happen to live or work in or near these fortunate suburban ink spots, the crumbs available for public services will continue to diminish, as will public security.

An opposition united against oligarchs is a kleptocracy’s greatest threat, so they must maintain a divide-and-conquer strategy. In the 2024 presidential election, Trump increased his share of Black and Latino voters and barely budged with white voters, leaving some experts to describe polarization as decreasing. But many of Trump’s early decisions seem designed to reinflame polarization. For example, his sweeping pardon of the 1,500-plus people charged with crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol hardly seems geared toward uniting the country. The ongoing purge of military leaders, with some dismissals apparently linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, is further divisive. Particularly notable was the firing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., along with the chief of naval operations, vice chief of staff of the Air Force, and the top lawyers for the Army, Air Force, and Navy. Generals have been fired before, including by Presidents Harry Truman and Barack Obama, but in Brown’s case, there was no clear reason or obvious poor performance to point to. In fact, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously questioned if Brown, who is Black, had received his position because of his skin color.

Whether such actions, taken en masse, add up to full-fledged kleptocracy remains to be seen. But what is certain is that kleptocracy is a deliberate strategy rather than a fortuitous opportunity. There is no “accidental kleptocracy.” As a result, dekleptification studies show that the best time to dekleptify a society is whenever that society’s rules and institutions are in flux, which in the United States is now. Normally, a dekleptification window stays open for up to two years, but this American example is moving so fast that there may be only months rather than years to react.

Civil society action through the courts has been the most effective countermove so far. Organizations such as Democracy Forward, a consortium of good-governance civil society groups, have been filing lawsuits on behalf of veterans, teachers, and the rights of average citizens. Likewise, states—especially blue states—have been filing lawsuits, including one alleging that DOGE’s authority granted by Trump is unconstitutional.

People around the world have fought against kleptocratic networks, often successfully. That means there is a trove of dekleptification lessons learned for concerned Americans to adapt as part of developing their own strategies and tactics. USAID’s Dekleptification Guide is considered the best synthesis of how to dekleptify a country; it examined case studies of both successful and unsuccessful dekleptification from around the world to find the most useful strategies. While the document is no longer online, the anti-corruption community is working to make it available to the public again. It is hardly the only guide. Srdja Popovic helped found the group Otpor! in Serbia, which successfully and nonviolently helped bring down President Slobodan Milosevic’s kleptocracy. Since then, Popovic has worked through the Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies to publicize successful nonviolent strategies, too. These are only two of the many global sources available. After decades of Americans trying to tell other countries’ citizens how to fix their governments, it may be time to turn the tables.

As for grand corruption, Americans have their own history of fighting back, including during the Gilded Age. They can look for and then elect committed anti-corruption reformers like Theodore Roosevelt, reinvigorate the muckraking of Ida B. Wells and Ida Tarbell, and reengage in the tactics of sit-ins, protest marches, boycotts, and other acts of resistance. These, after all, have been the hallmark of civil rights movements throughout U.S. history. 

[azspot]

There’s a huge fortune to be made manufacturing tents and barbed wire and shackles and chains for the authoritarian regime. Any company morally corrupt enough to pursue that fortune is also going to be corrupt enough to skim as much additional graft and fraud as they can out of the process.

Soon We’ll Be Shipbuilding

[sawbuckplus]

[atwellfilm]

Grace: You did it.

Ethan: I called the police. I didn't tell them of your colorful past. This is your fault.

Grace's colorful past

Fraud, jewelry theft, art theft, corruption, extortion, resisting arresto, graft, abduction, blackmail, organized crime, grand larceny

Grace: I did not do it 🥺

[jangillman]

It is unbelievable to think that ANY patriotic American would ever consider voting Democrat when the truth and depth of their corruption is being revealed to the World! Leftist brainrot personified

[waynecowles]

Daily Jot: The War over Social Security

Bill Wilson – www.dailyjot.com

The media and Democrats once again are fearmongering that the Trump Administration is looking to cut Social Security when Trump is actually trying to get to the bottom of the graft and waste in the agency. Historically, Republicans have been accused by Democrats of plotting to take away seniors’ Social Security benefits when, in fact, the Democratic Party often voted to pilfer the Social Security fund by allocating its money to other government programs. The Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is exposing this fraud and Democrats and the media are melting down, especially over the latest findings pointing to the Biden Administration issuing millions of Social Security numbers to illegals that voted.

At a March 30 Wisconsin rally, Elon Musk introduced Antonio Gracias, a billionaire investor who is working with Musk investigating social security. Gracias explained that in 2021 some 270,000 illegal immigrants received Social Security numbers and that number under the Biden Administration jumped to over 2.1 million in 2024. Not disclosing the numbers, Gracias said a sampling found people in this group registered to vote and voted. Musk said that the Biden Administration conducted “a large-scale effort to import as many illegals as possible, ultimately to reshape the US voting system and make it a permanent one-party state.” Instead of investigating the story, the media and Democrat operatives (who have the most to lose if Musk/Gracias are correct) denied it and attacked the character and wealth of Musk and Gracias.

The media and Democrats focused on Musk’s and Gracias’ billionaire status rather than their claims. This socialist class warfare is used to invoke people’s jealousy and smokescreen the issue. For example, NBC, without documentation reported that Musk and Garcia were false, and dismissed the claims saying that all federal agencies have fraud. AP and Newsweek were similar. Instead of focusing on how much money a person makes, perhaps the focus should be on investigating whether what they claim is true. Billionaires are generally very successful people. Class envy can’t change their success. If Musk and Gracias have found what they believe is voter fraud, it’s worth some serious consideration.

Democrats and the media falsely claim that DOGE, Musk and President Trump want to cut Social Security benefits to senior citizens. The audit of Social Security is aimed at eliminating fraud and corruption. Those who are shouting the loudest against DOGE’s Social Security efforts are the ones who have been pilfering the fund’s money and diverting it to other programs, even enriching themselves. If each of us could have safely invested the money that the government took out of our paychecks for Social Security, we all would retire millionaires. It’s time something be done to hold accountability, especially if Social Security is being used to promote illegal voting. Proverbs 10:9 says, “He who walks with integrity walks securely, But he who perverts his ways will become known.” Those being exposed are feeling the heat of their perversions.

[akeliciousmedia]

BREAKING: EFCC Arrests Ex-Akwa Ibom Governor Udom Emmanuel Over Alleged ₦700 Billion Fraud

Former Akwa Ibom State governor, Udom Emmanuel, has been arrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over an alleged ₦700 billion fraud. Emmanuel, who served from 2015 to 2023, was taken into custody at the EFCC headquarters in Abuja on Tuesday after honouring an invitation from the anti-graft agency. His arrest follows a petition by the Network Against Corruption and…

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of "Joe Rogan Experience #2281 - Elon Musk"

"The discussion between Joe Rogan and Elon Musk reflects a blend of anti-establishment skepticism, techno-optimism, and selective critique that aligns with their personal stakes and worldview. While their criticisms of government waste, media bias, and institutional corruption raise valid points, the conversation is biased by its one-sided evidence, partisan tilt, and occasional conspiratorial leanings."

Below is a breakdown of the key narratives discussed in the Joe Rogan Experience podcast episode featuring Elon Musk.

Government Waste, Fraud, and Bureaucratic Inefficiency

Overview: Musk and Rogan discuss the findings of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), highlighting systemic waste and fraud within the U.S. federal government.

Details: - Musk describes discovering untraceable payments, such as blank checks issued by the Treasury without categorization codes or explanations, estimating potential savings of $100 billion annually by enforcing basic accountability measures. - Examples include $1.9 billion sent to a newly formed NGO with no prior activity, and 20 million deceased individuals marked as alive in the Social Security database, enabling fraudulent payments elsewhere. - The government fails audits routinely, with the Pentagon losing billions annually in unaccounted funds, likened to "couch cushion" losses.

Implications: This inefficiency is framed as a poorly managed business with an unlimited credit line, leading to inflation and a ballooning national debt (over $30 trillion, with future obligations doubling that figure due to Social Security and entitlements).

Political Corruption and the NGO Grift

Overview: The conversation delves into how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) serve as a mechanism for political corruption and graft.

Details: - Musk explains how individuals can leverage small investments (e.g., $10 million) to create NGOs that secure billions in government funding, citing George Soros as a master of this "system hack." - These NGOs often have vague, altruistic names (e.g., "Institute for Peace") but function as "graft machines" with little oversight, enriching their operators. - Rogan and Musk note that cutting this funding threatens entrenched bureaucratic interests, sparking resistance from those benefiting from the status quo.

Implications: This system is portrayed as a massive scam—potentially the "biggest in human history"—undermining democracy by funneling taxpayer money into private hands under the guise of public good.

Media Propaganda and Narrative Control

Overview: Musk and Rogan critique the mainstream media's role in spreading propaganda and distorting reality to protect vested interests.

Details: - Examples include the Associated Press falsely claiming DOGE fired air traffic controllers (when they’re hiring), and coordinated phrases like "sharp as a tack" used to describe Biden before his debate performance. - Musk discusses being labeled a "Nazi" despite no evidence, mirroring Trump’s treatment (e.g., the "fine people" hoax), suggesting a deliberate campaign to demonize dissenters. - Rogan highlights the media’s reliance on pharmaceutical ad revenue, which biases reporting and suppresses criticism of vaccine manufacturers or government policies.

Implications: The media is depicted as a tool of the "uniparty," gaslighting the public and radicalizing individuals against figures like Musk and Trump, potentially inciting violence.

Immigration and Electoral Manipulation

Overview: Musk posits that Democratic policies incentivize illegal immigration to secure a permanent voting bloc, threatening democracy.

Details: - He cites examples like FEMA funding luxury hotels for illegal immigrants in New York, and California offering free healthcare, acting as "magnets" to draw migrants. - Policies in states like New York and California allow illegal immigrants to vote in local elections without ID, with an estimated 600,000 registered in New York alone. - Musk argues this is a voter importation strategy to turn swing states blue, using entitlements fraud (e.g., disability payments to illegal immigrants) as a lure.

Implications: If unchecked, this could lead to a "deep blue socialist state," ending competitive elections and cementing one-party rule, a scenario Musk says he fought against by supporting Trump.

Space Exploration and Human Survival

Overview: Musk outlines SpaceX’s mission to make humanity multiplanetary, emphasizing the urgency of colonizing Mars.

Details: - Discusses the Starship’s progress toward full and rapid reusability, reducing space travel costs by a factor of 100, with plans to send unmanned missions to Mars by late 2026. - Highlights technical challenges like reusable heat shields, requiring innovations in materials science to withstand re-entry conditions. - Frames this as a race against time, given Earth’s vulnerabilities (e.g., asteroids, nuclear war, population collapse), aiming for a self-sufficient Mars colony within 30 years.

Implications: This narrative positions Musk as a visionary combating existential risks, contrasting with earthly corruption and shortsightedness.

Artificial Intelligence: Promise and Peril

Overview: The discussion explores AI’s potential to revolutionize society and its risks if misdirected.

Details: - Musk predicts AI surpassing human intelligence by 2026 and all humans combined by 2029-2030, with an 80% chance of a positive outcome. - Grok, his AI, is designed to seek truth over political correctness, contrasting with "woke" AIs like Google Gemini or OpenAI’s offerings, which prioritize diversity over facts. - Positive applications include medical diagnostics (e.g., analyzing blood work), while dangers include oppressive enforcement of ideological mandates (e.g., executing people for misgendering).

Implications: AI could either solve complex problems (e.g., government inefficiency) or amplify human flaws if programmed with flawed priorities, necessitating careful stewardship.

Epstein Files and Government Cover-ups

Overview: Musk and Rogan express frustration over the delayed release of Jeffrey Epstein’s client list and other government secrets (e.g., JFK files).

Details: - Question why evidence from Epstein’s properties hasn’t surfaced despite promises, suspecting destruction or suppression by a hostile bureaucracy. - Rogan suggests financial or relational entanglements protect the list’s contents, while Musk speculates it’s hidden in inaccessible systems or physical archives. - Musk trusts new appointees like Kash Patel to uncover truth, but notes their challenge against an entrenched, antagonistic system.

Implications: This secrecy fuels distrust, suggesting powerful figures evade accountability, undermining public faith in justice.

Trump Assassination Attempts and Security Concerns

Overview: The conversation addresses attempted assassinations of Trump and threats against Musk, linking them to media vilification.

Details: - Rogan details the Butler, PA attempt—suspicious elements like scrubbed records, multiple phones, and CNN’s live stream—suggesting a coordinated effort. - Musk recounts two pre-Trump-support incidents of mentally ill individuals targeting him, now amplified by media portraying him as a villain. - Both see this as an "antibody response" to their disruption of corrupt systems, with Musk fearing escalation if he pushes too hard.

Implications: This narrative paints them as targets of a desperate establishment, raising questions about unchecked power and radicalization.

Cultural Shifts and Weaponized Empathy

Overview: They critique the exploitation of empathy and ideological rigidity in Western culture.

Details: - Musk calls it "civilizational suicidal empathy," where policies (e.g., open borders) prioritize compassion over sustainability, exploited by political agendas. - Rogan notes the absurdity of firing people for saying "all lives matter," reflecting a shift from colorblindness to enforced tribalism. - Examples like the pregnant man emoji and misgendering fears illustrate a "virus" of irrationality infecting institutions like the NSA and CIA.

Implications: This cultural "bug" weakens societal resilience, making it vulnerable to manipulation and collapse.

The podcast weaves these narratives into a tapestry of systemic critique, technological ambition, and personal risk. Musk and Rogan position themselves as truth-seekers battling corruption, propaganda, and existential threats, with DOGE and X as tools to reprogram a broken "Matrix." The discussion oscillates between grounded concerns (government waste, media bias) and speculative frontiers (AI, Mars), reflecting a pivotal moment of upheaval and possibility.

Logical Fallacies in the Joe Rogan Experience with Elon Musk

Hasty Generalization

Definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.

Example: Musk states, "I think maybe 3/4 of The graft is democratic... maybe 20 25% that's Republicans," estimating corruption distribution without providing data or methodology. This broad claim about political parties’ involvement in graft relies on his "rough guess," lacking empirical support within the discussion.

Impact: Undermines the credibility of the claim by suggesting a precise split (75% vs. 25%) without substantiation, potentially oversimplifying a complex issue.

Straw Man

Definition: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Example: Rogan and Musk discuss media portrayals, with Rogan saying, "They’re saying it’s almost like you’re caught in an outdated version of the virus and everybody else already has the immunity to that virus," implying mainstream media blindly push outdated narratives. Musk agrees, framing legacy media as uniformly propagandistic (e.g., "Associated Propaganda").

Impact: This caricatures media as a monolith incapable of nuance, ignoring instances where outlets might report accurately or diverge from a single narrative, thus weakening their critique by attacking a distorted version of the opposition.

Ad Hominem

Definition: Attacking a person’s character rather than their argument.

Example: Musk dismisses a doctor’s advice by saying, "He’s a psychopath... a B12 addict," after being prescribed excessive B12 despite blood work showing surplus levels. The focus shifts from the medical advice’s validity to the doctor’s supposed mental state.

Impact: Diverts attention from evaluating the advice or industry practices (e.g., overprescription) to personal vilification, reducing the argument’s logical rigor.

Slippery Slope

Definition: Suggesting a relatively small action will inevitably lead to a chain of events resulting in a drastic outcome, without justification.

Example: Musk warns that if Democrats legalize illegal immigrants, "We will be a permanent one party State... a deep blue socialist State," predicting a domino effect from voter importation to court-packing and total control. Rogan echoes this, suggesting a "Central Bank digital currency and social credit score system" would follow.

Impact: Assumes an extreme outcome without demonstrating intermediate steps (e.g., how many immigrants would vote, or how policies would shift) are inevitable, exaggerating the threat to bolster their stance.

False Dichotomy

Definition: Presenting only two options when more exist, oversimplifying a complex issue.

Example: Musk says AI’s future is "either super awesome or super bad... not going to be something in the middle," framing outcomes as binary (utopia or annihilation). Rogan agrees, contrasting a woke "nanny AI" with a logical savior.

Impact: Ignores potential middle grounds—like AI improving some areas while posing manageable risks—limiting the discussion’s nuance and realism.

Appeal to Fear

Definition: Using fear to persuade rather than reason or evidence.

Example: Musk claims exposing corruption could get him "assassinated," saying, "If I fully destroy the corruption and The graft they will kill me," and cites past threats. Rogan amplifies this, noting media labeling Musk a Nazi could inspire "homicidal maniacs."

Impact: Heightens emotional stakes over logical analysis of corruption’s scope or specific threats, potentially exaggerating personal risk to garner sympathy or urgency.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Definition: Assuming that because one event follows another, the first caused the second.

Example: Rogan suggests Musk’s podcast appearance "the day before the election" had "a giant impact" on Trump’s victory, citing Musk’s plea to vote. Musk doesn’t dispute this.

Impact: Lacks evidence linking the podcast to voter turnout or election results, assuming correlation (timing) implies causation without data like viewership impact or polling shifts.

Anecdotal Evidence

Definition: Using personal stories as proof instead of broader, verifiable data.

Example: Musk recounts a doctor prescribing $1,000/month B12 supplements despite excess levels, using this to critique medical overprescription. Rogan generalizes this to high-rent doctors selling unnecessary treatments.

Impact: While compelling, one anecdote doesn’t prove systemic issues in medicine, risking overgeneralization without statistical backing (e.g., prevalence of such practices).

Red Herring

Definition: Introducing an irrelevant topic to distract from the main issue.

Example: When discussing the Epstein files’ delay, Musk shifts to speculating about physical vs. digital storage ("it’s either in a filing cabinet or a computer thing"), sidestepping the core issue of bureaucratic obstruction or evidence suppression.

Impact: Diverts focus from accountability or investigation progress to a tangential logistical question, diluting the argument’s thrust.

Analysis of Bias

The conversation between Joe Rogan and Elon Musk on The Joe Rogan Experience covers a wide range of topics, from government inefficiency and media propaganda to AI development and space exploration. While the discussion is framed as an open dialogue aimed at uncovering truth, several biases can be identified that shape the narrative. These biases stem from the participants' perspectives, their selection of evidence, and the rhetorical framing of their arguments. Below is an exploration of these biases, organized by key themes.

Anti-Establishment Bias

Description: Both Rogan and Musk exhibit a strong skepticism toward traditional institutions, including government bureaucracies, mainstream media, and political parties. This is evident in their portrayal of the government as a "big dumb machine" riddled with waste and corruption, and the media as a coordinated propaganda tool.

Evidence: - Musk describes the federal government as losing $2 trillion annually and failing audits, citing examples like the Navy losing $12 billion with no submarines to show for it. - Rogan and Musk repeatedly call out "Legacy Media" (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, AP) for spreading disinformation, such as the "fine people hoax" about Trump or labeling Musk a Nazi.

Bias Impact: - The discussion heavily emphasizes negative examples (e.g., NGO fraud, Social Security database errors) without equally highlighting instances where government or media might function effectively or serve a public good. This creates a one-sided narrative that assumes systemic incompetence or malice. - Alternative perspectives, such as the potential benefits of government programs or the challenges of media objectivity in a polarized era, are largely absent.

Confirmation Bias

Description: Rogan and Musk reinforce each other’s pre-existing beliefs, particularly about government overreach, media bias, and the value of their own initiatives (e.g., DOGE, X). They selectively focus on evidence that supports their worldview.

Evidence: - Musk’s assertion that cutting entitlements fraud for illegal immigrants is the "main reason" Democrats oppose him aligns with his broader narrative of a corrupt system, but no counter-data (e.g., economic contributions of immigrants) is explored. - Rogan’s enthusiasm for Musk’s DOGE findings ("one of the most important things that has ever happened in this country") amplifies Musk’s claims without questioning their scope or feasibility.

Bias Impact: - The conversation lacks critical pushback or exploration of opposing viewpoints. For instance, they dismiss Democratic policies as vote-buying schemes (e.g., free healthcare for illegals) without considering humanitarian or economic arguments. - This mutual reinforcement risks overstating the significance of their findings or the malevolence of their opponents, potentially alienating listeners who might see nuance in these issues.

Partisan Leanings

Description: While claiming to transcend traditional left-right divides, the discussion leans heavily into critiques of Democratic policies and media outlets associated with liberalism, with less scrutiny applied to Republican or conservative equivalents.

Evidence: - Musk estimates "3/4 of The graft is Democratic," suggesting Republicans are less corrupt (20-25%), but provides no detailed evidence to substantiate this ratio. - Rogan praises Fox News and conservative voices like Scott Jennings, while dismissing liberal media as "screechy woke people," implying a qualitative difference in credibility.

Bias Impact: - The focus on Democratic corruption (e.g., NGOs, voter importation) and liberal media lies (e.g., Associated Press) overshadows potential Republican graft or conservative media distortions, creating an imbalanced critique. - This could appeal to a right-leaning audience but risks alienating others by framing one side as disproportionately villainous.

Techno-Optimism Bias

Description: Musk’s vision of technology (e.g., SpaceX, AI via xAI) as a solution to societal and existential problems is presented with optimism that downplays potential downsides or uncertainties.

Evidence: - Musk predicts AI will be smarter than humans by next year and smarter than all humans combined by 2029-2030, with an 80% chance of a positive outcome, but offers little discussion of the 20% risk of "annihilation." - SpaceX’s reusable rocket technology is framed as a revolutionary breakthrough that could make humanity multiplanetary, with challenges (e.g., heat shield issues) treated as solvable without significant doubt.

Bias Impact: - The conversation minimizes risks or ethical dilemmas (e.g., AI misuse, space colonization feasibility) in favor of a narrative of inevitable progress. This could mislead listeners into underestimating the complexity or potential negative consequences. - Alternative voices—such as those skeptical of rapid AI advancement or space exploration’s prioritization over Earth-based issues—are not represented.

Personalization of Narrative

Description: Both Rogan and Musk center the discussion around their personal experiences and perceived persecution, which may exaggerate their roles as targets of a broader conspiracy.

Evidence: - Musk repeatedly mentions assassination threats and media smear campaigns (e.g., being called a Nazi), framing himself as a victim of a desperate establishment. - Rogan highlights his own demonization by CNN during past controversies, aligning his experience with Musk’s and Trump’s.

Bias Impact: - This personalization risks amplifying their sense of martyrdom, potentially overstating the coordinated nature of opposition (e.g., Musk’s claim that Democrats want to "destroy" him for exposing fraud). - It shifts focus from systemic issues to individual battles, which might resonate emotionally with listeners but obscure broader structural analysis.

Conspiracy-Tinged Framing

Description: The discussion frequently flirts with conspiratorial undertones, suggesting hidden forces (e.g., deep state, media cabals) without always providing concrete evidence.

Evidence: - Rogan and Musk speculate about the Butler assassination attempt on Trump, hinting at a "curled" path guided by unseen actors, but offer no definitive proof beyond suspicious circumstances (e.g., scrubbed house, multiple phones). - References to Epstein files, JFK files, and UAP cover-ups imply systemic suppression, yet they acknowledge a lack of direct access or clarity ("Where’s that mountain [of evidence]?").

Bias Impact: - This framing taps into distrust of authority, which may resonate with their audience, but risks undermining credibility by leaning on speculation rather than verifiable facts. - It contrasts with their calls for transparency (e.g., DOGE’s line-by-line cuts) by embracing opacity where it suits their narrative.

The discussion between Joe Rogan and Elon Musk reflects a blend of anti-establishment skepticism, techno-optimism, and selective critique that aligns with their personal stakes and worldview. While their criticisms of government waste, media bias, and institutional corruption raise valid points, the conversation is biased by its one-sided evidence, partisan tilt, and occasional conspiratorial leanings. These biases don’t invalidate their arguments but shape a narrative that prioritizes their perspective over a balanced exploration of complex issues. Listeners might benefit from supplementing this dialogue with alternative viewpoints to fully assess the topics raised.

[jangillman]

This is even more disgusting than a lot of all the other fraud going on because he's cheating our veterans funding!

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

The NY Times

By Peter Baker

Feb. 12, 2025

Now that he is back in office, President Trump sees corruption everywhere — in the foreign aid agency, at the Justice Department, in federal contracting. But when it comes to his own orbit, he doesn’t seem interested in looking.

In this second incarnation as president, Mr. Trump is presenting himself as a born-again corruption fighter rooting out waste, fraud and abuse from all corners of the federal government — even as he is dismantling the government’s mechanisms for fighting corruption, as it has been traditionally defined.

The president is boasting that he and Elon Musk, his partner in the efficiency drive, have found “billions and billions of dollars” of corrupt spending, although they have yet to provide evidence.

At the same time, his administration is dropping corruption casesagainst political figures with ties to him, firing inspectors generalwho actually search for abuse and pledging not to enforce a signature anti-corruption law against major corporations.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk are making accusations of corruption in the government ranks even as they ask voters to trust that they are not taking advantage of their own positions despite an extensive array of conflicts of interest unlike what any president or presidential adviser has had in modern times.

Dispensing with traditional ethics standards, both men are maintaining control of their private companies, which could benefit from actions by the government they oversee.

“I campaigned on the fact that I said that government is corrupt — and it is corrupt,” Mr. Trump said during an appearance this week with Mr. Musk in the Oval Office.

“I see a lot of kickback here,” he continued, without offering any concrete examples. “Tremendous kickback. Because no one could be so stupid to give out some of these contracts, so it must be kickbacks.”

He added: “When you get down to it, it’s probably going to be close to a trillion dollars.”

Mr. Trump often pulls numbers out of thin air and makes sweeping claims without regard to factual foundations. Likewise, Mr. Trump, the first felon ever elected president, regularly accuses anyone he disfavors of corruption and even criminality without proof. He cites conspiracy theories or distorted assertions to allege misconduct even after they have been debunked.

In his newfound drive against abuse in federal spending, he appears driven in large part by his self-declared war on the “deep state,” as he terms the bureaucracy, convinced that it sought to thwart his goals in his first term and set him up for multiple prosecutions during his four-year hiatus from the White House.

To the extent that Mr. Trump’s aides have identified objectionable spending in federal enclaves like the U.S. Agency for International Development, they are often rooted in policies he disagrees with rather than examples of dishonesty and graft. And his aides have at times misconstrued or misrepresented the details of what they have singled out.

Mr. Trump and his allies, for instance, confused ordinary subscription fees paid to news outlets with federal aid grants, leading the president to falsely assert that the government had given money “to the fake news media as a ‘payoff’ for creating good stories about the Democrats.”

Similarly, five of eight examples of purportedly misguided spending at U.S.A.I.D. cited by the White House press secretary were not actually expenditures by that agency, or were described misleadingly. None of them, as presented at least, involved theft or criminality, just priorities that Mr. Trump opposes.

“Nothing that they have identified via the DOGE social media posts is, to my knowledge, evidence of fraud or corruption,” said Jessica Tillipman, an associate dean at George Washington Law School and a specialist on government contracting. She was referring to Mr. Musk’s team, which calls itself the Department of Government Efficiency.

“Fraud and corruption are illegal and what DOGE has identified so far are payments that this administration disagrees with or views as wasteful, which are not illegal,” she added. “Calling these things fraudulent or corrupt misrepresents what they are finding.”

During their Oval Office comments on Tuesday, Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk made vague and sensational claims that were hard to verify. Mr. Musk said his team had discovered that the federal government had sent out “a massive number of blank checks” and that “known fraudsters” were being paid. He said Social Security checks were going to people whose dates of birth would indicate that they were as old as 150. “We found fraud and abuse, I would use those two words,” he said.

Cryptically, he said that there were people working for the federal government who were accruing tens of millions of dollars while on the payroll. “Mysteriously, they get wealthy,” he said. “We don’t know why. Where does it come from? I think the reality is they’re getting wealthy at taxpayers’ expense. That’s the honest truth of it.”

But he did not offer any documentation to back up his assertion. A former inspector general from a previous administration, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said Mr. Musk simply had not had enough time to learn how agencies work and may be simply misunderstanding what he has seen in data searches.

Mr. Musk’s claims have excited longstanding critics of government who have long been disappointed by past efforts to weed out waste and fraud. Even if all of the details are still to be worked out, they said, at least someone at last is fearlessly scouring the federal government for improper spending.

“As someone who has been advocating for limited government for my entire professional life, I always instinctively knew that there was some level of graft and corruption,” Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, wrote this week. “But the level being revealed in just a short amount of time and the elaborate networks to hide it are absolutely stunning.”

There is no doubt that fraud and waste can be found in any large organization, especially one that spends $6 trillion a year like the federal government does. The Government Accountability Office estimated last year that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion a year to fraud, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

Additionally, the G.A.O. said that federal agencies had reportedmaking an estimated $236 billion in improper payments in the 2023 fiscal year and estimated that the government had made about $2.7 trillion in such payments over the previous 20 years. Such payments rose during Mr. Trump’s last stretch as president, from $144.4 billion in 2016, before he took office, to $206.4 billion in 2020, the final year of his first term, when pandemic aid programs led to a surge in fraudulent claims.

Mr. Trump’s interest in fighting corruption is selective. 

In a little over three weeks in office, Mr. Trump’s Justice Department has dropped a case against former Representative Jeffrey Fortenberry of Nebraska, who was charged with lying to the F.B.I. in an investigation of illegal campaign donations, and federal prosecutors withdrew from a campaign finance investigation of Representative Andy Ogles, Republican of Tennessee, leaving the future of the case uncertain.

Just this week, the department also moved to drop bribery chargesagainst Mayor Eric Adams of New York, who has cozied up to Mr. Trump since the election. Mr. Trump pardoned former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, who was convicted of a scheme to sell an appointment to the U.S. Senate.

The president has nominated Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to be ambassador to France despite a conviction for tax evasion and witness retaliation. (Mr. Trump commuted Mr. Blagojevich’s sentence and pardoned Mr. Kushner in his first term.)

The re-elected president also fired as many as 17 inspectors general from around the government, purging the very officials whose mission is to uncover the kind of waste and abuse that Mr. Trump says he is out to eradicate. In so doing, he defied the provisions of law governing the dismissal of such inspectors, prompting a lawsuit Wednesday by some of those who were fired.

He has also fired the heads of the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of Special Counsel, two watchdog agencies that vexed his team during his first term by pursuing allegations of misconduct.

And on Monday, Mr. Trump signed an order directing the Justice Department to stop enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law that bars bribing foreign government officials to secure overseas business deals, arguing that such prosecutions make it harder for American firms to compete against international rivals.

“There is great irony with respect to their regular complaints about corruption while taking all of these extraordinary actions that undermine U.S. anti-corruption efforts,” said Ms. Tillipman, who has taught about anti-corruption efforts in government procurement for nearly two decades.

In their zeal to ferret out corruption and restore trust in government, Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk have expressed no concern about the impact of their own decisions. Mr. Trump maintains his real estate and promotional ventures that profit off his celebrity and appeal to potential business partners eager to curry favor with the president of the United States. A cryptocurrency venture he set up days before the inauguration has already steered $100 million in trading fees to his family and partners in the past month.

Mr. Musk continues to own and run multiple companies that receive billions of dollars in contracts from the federal government and are the subject of multiple government reviews and investigations. Even if he does not involve himself directly, the officials who make the decisions have seen that government officials who cross Mr. Trump or Mr. Musk in recent weeks have been put on leave or fired.

A White House official said this week that Mr. Musk, who is designated an unpaid “special government employee,” planned to file a financial disclosure report, but that it would remain confidential even as he has vowed to be transparent about his activities.

Asked on Wednesday if Mr. Trump had signed a conflict-of-interest waiver for Mr. Musk and if the White House would release it, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said she was unfamiliar with the law that makes it a crime for government workers to touch an official matter that affects their personal interests without a waiver, and did not address whether Mr. Musk had received one.

“Both Donald Trump and Elon Musk have massive potential conflicts of interest themselves and appear to be doing little or nothing to avoid those,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, and a former federal corruption prosecutor. “For them to be up there talking about taking steps in the interest of reducing waste, fraud and abuse, it is quite simply disingenuous.

“If they want to cut government spending because that’s what they believes is the right thing to do as a policy matter, then we have processes to do that,” Mr. Bookbinder added. “They can work with Congress. This seems like a pretext at best.”