In it for the money: How business leaders in the Trump administration could shape a new oligarchy

RU

Billionaires in the White House

Donald Trump not only became the first billionaire to serve as U.S. president but also managed to return to the White House after losing an election. His forthcoming administration is already being called the wealthiest in the nation’s history. In addition to Trump himself, whose current fortune is estimated at over $6 billion, the new government will include numerous members of America’s economic elite. It is unlikely they’ve accepted these positions in public service in order to grow poorer.

The list of questionable appointments, a collection rife with potential conflicts of interest, is extensive. The post of Treasury Secretary is slated to go to investment manager Scott Bessent, while the Commerce Department will be headed by Howard Lutnick, CEO of financial firm Cantor Fitzgerald. The Education Secretary role will go to Linda McMahon, a former high level executive in the WWE professional wrestling federation. Warren Stephens, owner of investment bank Stephens Inc., will serve as Ambassador to the United Kingdom. And Trump’s special representative for the Middle East will be his golfing partner, developer Steve Witkoff, who organized Trump campaign fundraising efforts among Jewish businesspeople.

Trump has also chosen to appoint two of familial connections, both of whom possess multimillion-dollar fortunes. The prestigious role of Ambassador to France will go to Charles Kushner, a New Jersey developer and the father of Ivanka Trump’s husband, Jared Kushner. Notably, Trump pardoned the elder Kushner at the end of his first term. Meanwhile, Masad Boulos, a Lebanese-born member of an Orthodox Christian family and father-in-law to Trump’s youngest daughter Tiffany, will serve as Trump’s advisor on Middle Eastern and Arab affairs.

Trump has also announced a commission aimed, officially at least, at improving the efficiency of government agencies. Its slated leaders are two more billionaires: Vivek Ramaswamy, who ran in the Republican primaries as a pro-Trump alternative to the eventual nominee, and Elon Musk, who despite a fortune of approximately $353 billion has chosen to become one of Trump’s closest advisors.

Musk is even getting his friends involved. Billionaire, Jared Isaacman — who has twice flown aboard the SpaceX Crew Dragon — is set to become the head of NASA. Another close associate of Musk’s, billionaire PayPal co-founder David Sacks, will assume the role of Trump’s advisor on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies. Sacks, a leader within the conservative wing of Silicon Valley, will also head the White House’s Science and Technology Council.

The combined financial assets of the members of Trump’s new administration exceed $363 billion. Even excluding Musk and Ramaswamy, who are likely to serve only as unofficial advisors on a voluntary basis, the total net worth of the remaining members of his government is around $25 billion.

This figure is significantly higher than that of any prior administration — including Trump’s first cabinet, which itself was not short on cash. The collective wealth of former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos exceeded $6 billion.

Of course, appointing multimillionaires and billionaires poses potential conflicts of interest. By law, if these figures assume official federal government positions, they must resign from their business roles and fully disclose their financial information, completing a detailed questionnaire listing all assets. Additionally, they would be prohibited from taking any official actions that could directly benefit themselves financially. Some assets might even need to be sold.

However, there are loopholes that allow these rules to be circumvented. Unlike future cabinet members, Trump’s potential advisors and special envoys can work on a voluntary basis. This allows them to continue managing their businesses while simultaneously influencing national policy and advising the White House. Such a setup opens opportunities for lobbying — whether from businesses reliant on government contracts, as in the case of Ramaswamy and Musk, whose companies also receive billions in public funding, or from foreign countries, as with Boulos and Witkoff, who will be responsible for Middle East diplomacy.

Who funded whom

Most businesspeople preliminarily appointed to Trump’s administration contributed to his election campaign. For example, Linda McMahon spent around $15 million, Howard Lutnick donated $6 million, Scott Bessent gave $3 million, while Steve Witkoff and Warren Stephens each contributed $2 million. These are modest donations by U.S. political standards. Elon Musk was one of Trump’s largest campaign donors, contributing nearly $250 million. Timothy Mellon, the grandson of industrialist and banker Andrew Mellon, donated $150 million. And Miriam Adelson, widow of gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson, gave $100 million.

Donations from wealthy individuals to Kamala Harris were notably smaller. For instance, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz spent about $39 million on her campaign, while former New York City Mayor and media mogul Michael Bloomberg contributed $19 million. Among the 150 wealthiest U.S. families, the preference was clearly in favor of the Republican Party.

Additionally, industrial and sectoral lobbyists spent about $425 million in this election cycle. Of the donations from top executives and industry and corporate funds, 64% went to Republican candidates. Of this sum, 90% supported campaigns of politicians who ultimately won.

Republicans received more donations from the financial and construction sectors, transportation and oil and gas industries, agribusiness, Pentagon contractors, and telecommunications companies. Democrats received more support from unions and the healthcare sector. Lobbyists and lawyers donated roughly equally to both parties.

The cryptocurrency industry was particularly influential in this election, spending over $245 million on campaign donations or advocacy for or against various candidates. This amount dwarfs the $4-5 million spent in the 2020 and 2022 elections, when such firms were less influential.

These political investments paid off handsomely: 275 pro-cryptocurrency representatives and only 122 opponents were elected to the House, while the Senate gained 20 allies and just 12 opponents. Major crypto investors like Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz also donated $7 million to a pro-Trump fund — one led by Sergio Gor, who will head the White House personnel office.

Freedom of speech and money

In recent decades, every U.S. presidential election has set new records for campaign and advocacy spending. This time, Democrat Kamala Harris raised over $1.6 billion, while Republican Donald Trump collected nearly $1.1 billion. In total, about $16 billion was spent on campaigns at all levels — presidential, senatorial, congressional, and state.

The U.S. differs significantly from almost all Western democracies, which tend to impose stricter limits on campaign donations. In theory, American law also sets restrictions — for instance, individual donations to a candidate cannot exceed $3,000 per election cycle, and contributions to a political party are capped at $35,000.

Many of these limitations were introduced in the 1970s following scandals that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation. Over the years, however, the Supreme Court has struck down several of these restrictions, deeming them unconstitutional. The Court ruled that financial support for candidates and campaign advocacy constitutes political expression protected under the First Amendment. One of the most notable decisions in this regard was Citizens United v. FEC in 2010.

Disclosure requirements for funding sources were also relaxed. For example, nonprofit contributions and money spent on promoting legislative proposals or political ideas without mentioning specific candidates are no longer subject to disclosure. These rulings have led to a sharp rise in campaign financing, associated funds, and “dark money,” for which the origin of donations remains unknown.

There are also numerous loopholes, such as political action committees (PACs), which can receive donations from individuals and corporations, channeling them to candidates’ campaigns or independently conducting advocacy.

Corporations and various interest groups actively use financial donations to support candidates who can represent their interests in legislative and executive branches of government. Formally, this is not considered corruption, as candidates cannot use this money for personal expenses, and politicians are regularly prosecuted if they are suspected of misusing campaign funds. However, this does not prevent legislators from using these funds, for example, to pay for dinners at expensive restaurants, or for flights, declaring them as campaign expenses.

Legal lobbying

Funding election campaigns is only one form of advancing corporate interests, and it is often linked to direct lobbying, which remains legal in the U.S. — provided that lobbyists register officially and report their expenditures and contacts with legislative and executive officials. Lobbyists often promise campaign funding to lawmakers, sometimes even establishing funds to support them. This is a critical aspect of politics, as members of Congress reportedly spend up to one-third of their time raising money for future campaigns.

Like campaign sponsorship, lobbying is considered to be a form of free speech. Regulation began in the 20th century, starting with the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which required those engaged in lobbying for foreign governments to register their affiliations. In 1945, a similar law mandated the registration of domestic lobbyists, although the Supreme Court limited its application to professional lobbyists who were personally involved in meeting legislators.

Such interpretations left room for corruption, leading to scandals in the early 1990s involving lawmakers working with Wendtel Corporation, which bypassed registered lobbying to openly bribe politicians in pursuit of securing government contracts. In response, Congress passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act in order to tighten lobbying regulations.

In the 2000s, further reforms followed a scandal involving prominent lobbyist Jack Abramoff. New laws mandated more frequent reporting by lobbyists, prohibited gifts and meals, and restricted privately funded trips taken without ethics committee approval. Violations carry penalties of up to $200,000 and five years in prison, though in practice, offenders often face minimal consequences.

Even Abramoff, who served 3.5 years in prison, acknowledged that these reforms’ had been at best a limited success:

“You can't take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a hamburger or a steak or something like that. But you can take him to a fund-raising lunch and not only buy him that steak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fund-raiser — and have all the same access and all the same interactions with that congressman.”

Lobbying expenditures are an extremely effective investment for companies. The Strategas Center analyzed the 50 companies that spent the most on lobbying relative to their assets, comparing them with the performance of the S&P 500 index. The study found that the returns from lobbying are comparable to hedge fund performance. Other researchers have reached similar conclusions, particularly regarding firms that secure large government contracts. For example, Pentagon contractor Lockheed Martin earned $2,500 in profit for every dollar spent on lobbying.

Unsurprisingly, in 2023, corporate spending on lobbying hit a record $4.27 billion, with the total number of registered lobbyists exceeding 12,000. Many of these lobbyists are former lawmakers, who understand the legislative process and have extensive political connections in Congress, making their work much easier. According to a 2005 report by the NGO Public Citizen, 43% of the nearly 200 former lawmakers who left Congress over the previous seven years became lobbyists. Between 2009 and 2019, 176 former members of Congress joined the lobbyists’ ranks.

In the 1970s, fewer than 10% of congressmen went on to become lobbyists. However, in the 1990s and 2000s this changed rapidly, and by 2012, 50% of former House members and 60% of former senators had become registered lobbyists. Even more often, legislative assistants and office staff members pursue this career path, with at least 5,500 of them becoming lobbyists.

By law, House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists for one year after leaving office, while senators face a two-year restriction. Several states also impose similar limits — typically of 1 to 6 years — for state legislators. Executive branch officials face a lifetime ban on lobbying for private sector interests pertaining to specific issues they worked on in government, as well as a 1- to 2-year ban on lobbying broader issues after leaving office.

“Revolving doors” in U.S. politics

The transition of former lawmakers and their aides into lobbying positions is just one example of the so-called “revolving door” between American politics and big business. Federal officials and members of Congress, whose salaries are relatively modest compared to the level of compensation offered by the private sector, can leave office and be rewarded with a lucrative role as a lobbyist, consultant, or board member by the companies whose interests they supported while in office.

The “revolving door” can also work in reverse, with lobbyists and employees of large companies moving into government positions, especially if they have previous government experience. For example, after leaving military service in 2016, retired General Lloyd Austin became a board member of Pentagon contractor Raytheon Technologies — in 2020, he returned to government as the Secretary of Defense.

In the presidential administrations of Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, 17% of senior officials in the Departments of Commerce and Transportation either had been lobbyists before their appointments or became lobbyists after leaving government. In six other departments, the proportion of lobbyists exceeded 10%. According to one study, from 2005 to 2020, 15% of employees at the Department of Health and Human Services transitioned to the private sector, with the figures at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Insurance Department exceeding 50%.

Directors of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often find positions in major pharmaceutical companies. Similarly, many former members and staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) move into private-sector roles within the industries they once regulated.

A report from 2007 to 2011 revealed that former SEC employees filed 789 notices of their intent to represent companies, sometimes within just days of leaving their governmental positions. More than half of these notices came from staff in the department responsible for regulating the stock market, a figure four times higher than that of other departments.

The career trajectories of lawmakers are even more evident. Of the 44 members who left Congress in 2019, 64% joined lobbying and consulting firms, industry groups, and business associations that seek to influence federal or state policies.

In 2014, political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page published a study analyzing the role of various groups in shaping policy on key issues. Their conclusion was concerning:

Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

This view was echoed in a 2017 report by the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO), which acknowledged that the U.S. has the legal, ethical, and institutional framework to prevent and combat corruption among members of Congress, judges, and prosecutors. However, the “revolving door” system and private pre-legislative discussions significantly undermine this framework.

As Trump’s administration takes shape after January 20, attention will likely focus on how members of his team utilize these loopholes. While the U.S. has an institutional framework in place to prevent conflicts of interest and direct corruption, there are growing concerns about whether its rules will be enforced — especially against the wealthiest of the figures slated to begin wielding serious political power in just over a month.