As the new administration forms, questions arise about effectively overseeing the influential wealthy businessmen shaping the president’s second term.
President Donald J. Trump’s second term will include more wealthy individuals and billionaires than any other administration in recent American history, with assets that, if combined, would reach $460 billion, nearly 2% of the nation’s gross domestic product.
This significant concentration of wealth, originating from key economic sectors, draws various interests into the extensive ocean of federal government privileges.
During Trump’s first administration (2017-2021), the cabinet was the wealthiest in history, largely due to the president’s fortune. In contrast, his second administration reflects a greater diversity in the sources of wealth, primarily influenced by the financial interests associated with Silicon Valley technology companies.
As the new administration forms, a significant question emerges: Will legislators from both parties, independent oversight groups, the press, and the public be able to effectively monitor and hold accountable this small but powerful group of elites with considerable wealth and influence? The ability to do so will largely depend on the political will of the Republicans, who currently hold full control of the Congress.
Trump’s first administration left a sour impression on government watchdog groups and congressional Democrats. They sought to uncover the extent to which the president abused his power to benefit his real estate and tourism businesses at the expense of his position in office.
According to a report by the Democrats’ Oversight Committee released in October 2024, these practices constituted a significant abuse of power.
Now that Trump is back in the Oval Office, the question is whether more oversight will be needed to hold new officials — and Trump himself — accountable, or if existing tools will suffice to ensure transparency.
This issue is particularly important because some individuals will oversee the industries that contributed to their wealth, while others will remain closely connected to those sectors, creating potential conflicts of interest.
Is it more challenging to oversee new officials based on the origins of their wealth or their connections? What could the sometimes abstract concept of “abuse of power” mean moving forward, especially in a way that might raise concerns for ethics experts?
“President Biden pledged to establish a commission on federal ethics to improve how effectively the government enforces federal ethics laws. Since this commission was not established, and the Office of Government Ethics does not have the ability to enforce these laws, there is a significant potential for conflicts of interest with Trump nominees with significant wealth,” wrote Danielle Caputo, an attorney and senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, in an analysis.
The head of the office of government ethics is chosen every five years with the goal of it not being chosen in a partisan way, so there’s some overlap between you know administrations often, Mrs. Caputo explained in a phone interview with Itempnews.
The issue is that the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which supervises hundreds of Senate-approved candidates and thousands of political appointees, reviews only those individuals who are officially employed by the government. This leaves out external advisors like billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who Trump has brought on to streamline bureaucracy and tackle government “waste.”
“One important immediate task, with nominee financial disclosure, helping ensure that nominees for Senate confirmed positions meet their requirements for complete disclosure of their financial interests and arrangements,” said David Huitema, director of the OGE, in an interview with Reuters.
This process outlines sources of income, liabilities, gifts, and financial transactions. However, even with these filters, appointees frequently conceal important details, as seen with Wilbur Ross, the former Commerce Secretary during the first Trump administration.
A cryptocurrency and its interests
Before taking office, President Trump announced the launch of a new cryptocurrency called $Trump, a digital token designed to capitalize on the global influence of his brand and loyal following.
The token rapidly gained popularity among supporters and investors, significantly increasing its value, and making it one of the most valuable cryptocurrencies in the world. However, critics have raised concerns about the project’s transparency, potential conflicts of interest, and its broader implications for the intersection of American politics and finance.
Mrs. Caputo, the Campaign Legal Center attorney, discussed what might be a conflict of interest with Trump’s new cryptocurrency.
“The new currency is available and it gives the opportunity for foreign governments to start buying it. This will put money directly into President Trump’s pockets. From there, maybe we’ll see him decide to act in a way that maybe isn’t something the United States would traditionally do, helping that government because they bought his cryptocurrency and now he’s helping them because they allowed him to make money.”
Political connections and more
The presidential transition team is tasked with making 11,000 appointments over the next four years, including 2,000 that needed to be filled before the January 20 inauguration, according to The New York Times. By that date, only 113 nominees had been announced for 817 positions tracked by the Partnership for Public Service and The Washington Post. Most came from the private sector, raising potential conflicts of interest, as Itempnews discovered after reviewing several State Department nominations and cross-referencing their profiles with public records and data from OpenSecrets, a government transparency group.
The president has the authority to appoint around 4,000 positions within the executive branch and across 441 independent agencies, including 1,300 that require Senate confirmation. This gives room to distribute roles among close collaborators, political strategists, former lobbyists, and donors who supported Trump’s return to power.
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, and Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech magnate and former presidential candidate, will lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This initiative, promoted by Trump, aims to reduce waste and streamline the size of government.
At least a dozen billionaires and industry moguls from sectors such as technology, construction, entertainment, and banking have been appointed to important government roles, including ambassadorships and unofficial positions.
In addition to these high-profile figures, other appointments have gone to less publicly known names, such as Jacob Helberg, a senior advisor at defense contractor Palantir, and Susie Wiles, a prominent lobbyist and Republican strategist who ran Trump’s 2024 campaign. These decisions highlight the growing influence of corporations and their allies in American politics.
Mr. Helberg, a technology expert and former member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, has been nominated to serve as the Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment. Meanwhile, Mrs. Wiles will assume the role of White House Chief of Staff, further solidifying her position as one of the officials closest to Trump’s inner circle.
The connection between economic interests and public office is clearly illustrated by the case of Mr. Helberg, who is married to Keith Rabois, a billionaire technology investor and executive at Palantir. Mr. Helberg previously worked as an advisor at Palantir, a company that holds multimillion-dollar contracts with the U.S. military for defense software. In September, the couple organized a fundraiser for Trump’s campaign, during which Mr. Helberg donated one million dollars.
Mr. Rabois is part of the so-called “PayPal Mafia,” a group of founders from the digital payments company. While he has gained prominence as an investor, it is Mr. Helberg who has spent years sounding the alarm about the need to counter China’s advancements in artificial intelligence—a sector where Palantir holds significant investments and has poured millions into lobbying efforts, according to public records.
Ken Howery, a technology investor and former U.S. ambassador to Sweden during Trump’s first administration, has been nominated to serve as ambassador to Denmark. A former partner of Mr. Rabois at Founders Fund, a leading venture capital firm, Mr. Howery was also PayPal’s first chief financial officer, while Mr. Rabois later became the chief executive of OpenStore.
If Mr. Helberg is confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, one of his main responsibilities will be to promote technological innovation and the interests of U.S. private industries amidst the growing tech rivalry with China. This approach could align government priorities with those of Palantir and its ecosystem, amid tensions of the new technological Cold War.
Regulations are always a sensitive issue in any administration. Since the first day of Trump’s second term, his decisions to repeal federal regulations have been viewed as a response to the hidden interests of privileged donors or connected officials, experts warn.
“Now we may be entering a new era in which money fuses with power. It’s tepid to complain that “big donors” have undue influence in government. The biggest donors now run the campaigns. These are not backroom financiers or oil and gas wildcatters, but major government contractors and, in the case of Musk, the owner of one of the biggest media properties in the world. Shortly after Election Day, Musk even moved into a cottage at the president-elect’s home,” Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, wrote in a newsletter.
Under a Republican administration supported by the ultra-wealthy, officials and citizens concerned with ethics face the challenge of ensuring that the current system for financial disclosure and oversight is effective enough to identify potential conflicts of interest promptly. As the size of assets and beneficiaries increases, tracing their origins and connections becomes more complicated.
Some historians suggest that the Founding Fathers harbored concerns about corporations, fearing the risks associated with concentrated power, especially in terms of wealth.
Yet, over the past three centuries, these very interests and demands have played a pivotal role in shaping the nation, influencing its governmental structures, and forming the bedrock of modern America. The pressing concern today is that the principles and oversight mechanisms that have upheld the nation could be entirely eroded by a culture of opacity tolerated at the highest echelons of power.