Jonathan Capehart: Elon Musk talk about why, why go why go after him, why not go after, just keep the, the lawsuits focused on Trump.
Norm Eisen: Three of those cases are involve Elon Musk. The very first case saying, hey, this DOGE is illegal, Jonathan, where is this department of Government Efficiency approved by Congress or Elon Musk approved by Congress? Then he got in the Treasury Department, right, he attempted to get, well, we, we got another order. No, Elon, we blocked him out of the Treasury Department. The biggest was just filed last week. We say Elon Musk is acting as a kind of super cabinet member but like a regular cabinet member, you must be approved by Congress under the Appointments clause. The reason this is so important, Donald Trump has outsourced many of the functions of the presidency to Elon Musk, by far his largest benefactor in the campaign. Uh, huh, he’s an American oligarch you see this in every, um, uh, autocratic regime. There’s favored business figures. Elon Musk has business interests that many of these agencies he’s cutting are regulating. So we’ve gone to court to say that Constitution doesn’t allow this. We’re very focused on this issue.
Jonathan Capehart: So all of these can, a lot of these cases will probably end up at the Supreme Court…
Norm Eisen’s claim that Elon Musk is an “American oligarch,” akin to those in autocratic regimes, misrepresents both Musk’s role and the U.S. system. Unlike oligarchs in autocracies, who wield unchecked state power to suppress dissent, Musk operates in a constitutional republic where his influence is constrained by laws, courts, and democratic oversight, not enabled by dictatorship. His involvement in policy discussions, even if significant, stems from private influence—such as advising on efficiency—not state-backed authority, as Eisen’s “super cabinet member” label implies. Eisen’s comparison exaggerates Musk’s position by suggesting systemic power he doesn’t have, ignoring the democratic checks that distinguish the U.S. from autocratic regimes. Critics exaggerate Musk’s influence, but advisory roles by private citizens are common and constitutional.