Last week we analyzed the initial appointments made by US President-elect Donald Trump, assessing their potential policy directions. Among these appointments, the nomination of Representative Matt Gaetz for Attorney General stood out as particularly contentious, even for a figure as polarizing as Trump. Gaetz, who was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, has since withdrawn from consideration, citing insufficient support for Senate confirmation. Subsequently, Trump nominated former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to the position. Bondi is expected to pursue similar objectives, such as addressing the legal challenges involving Trump personally, but without the controversies associated with Gaetz.
In related developments, Special Counsel Jack Smith announced his resignation, preempting his potential dismissal by the incoming administration. Similarly, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler stated that he will resign on January 20, 2025, coinciding with Trump’s inauguration. Trump’s expressed intention to position the US as a global cryptocurrency hub and implement significant deregulation in the sector contrasts sharply with Gensler’s regulatory approach over the past few years.
Regarding the Treasury Secretary appointment, the final contenders were Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick. Elon Musk reportedly favored Lutnick, viewing Bessent’s previous association with Soros Fund Management as indicative of mainstream economic ties. Ultimately, Trump appointed Lutnick as Commerce Secretary, responsible for the new tariffs regime, and Bessent as Treasury Secretary. Unlike Trump’s other appointments, the choice of Bessent is a less controversial choice for this sensitive role.
Some media outlets interpreted this as Musk’s first setback in the high-profile leadership dynamics within the incoming administration. Reports suggest that Musk, who has been appointed to lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, is exerting significant influence over Trump’s decisions, with some describing him as a “co-president.” Despite potential conflicts of interest due to his ownership of companies like SpaceX and Starlink, Musk is reportedly considering appointing personnel from his own enterprises to positions within NASA.
As the post-election landscape becomes clearer, it is evident that tech magnates such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are playing pivotal roles in shaping the administration. Musk was a major donor to Trump’s campaign, contributing approximately $200 million, and facilitated Trump’s return to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which Musk owns, from which the former president had been expelled for his incendiary messages. Trump himself has acknowledged Musk’s indispensable role, stating, “I can’t get him out of here.”
Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and founder of Palantir Technologies—a company financed and utilized by the US intelligence community—has supported the political rise of Vice President-elect J.D. Vance.
It is anticipated that Musk and Thiel will pursue objectives aligned with their corporate interests, potentially prioritizing deregulation to benefit tech companies. This trend reflects a historical pattern in US politics, where Big Business, whether it be steel, coal, banking, etc., has exerted significant influence. The emergence of antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act of 1890, was a response to such dominance. As Mark Twain is often paraphrased: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
