Sue Him

As I write this, Elon Musk and his associates have, without congressional authorization, effectively prevented the American government from fulfilling its contractual obligations. While precise figures aren't available, reliable reports indicate that these blocked contracts encompass virtually all USAID grants to nonprofit organizations.

Setting aside momentarily the strategic shortsightedness and ethical implications of this action, we must confront a fundamental fact: Musk is a private citizen who possesses no legal authority to interfere with the execution of these signed contracts.

Therefore, I urge every organization being denied their contractually guaranteed federal funding to pursue legal action against Musk on two grounds: first, to compel him to cease his interference with the government's contractual obligations; and second, to hold him personally liable for interest payments covering the duration of these funding delays.

I recognize the hesitation many NGOs might feel about this approach. These organizations are repeat players in the federal grant system, with many depending on U.S. government funding for a significant portion of their operations. Their deep expertise in their respective fields often leads them to overestimate their ability to persuade the current administration of their work's strategic importance.

However, the rules of engagement have fundamentally changed, necessitating a corresponding shift in tactical response. Failure to mount an adversarial challenge to Musk's power grab will only embolden future encroachments.

My proposed strategy, outlined earlier, would at minimum raise the costs of future interference. I see three potential outcomes: the courts rule in favor of the NGOs and the administration complies; the courts support the NGOs but the administration defies the ruling; or the courts rule against the NGOs.

The first scenario would clearly complicate future power grabs. A public defeat would not only damage the administration's authority but specifically tie this loss to Musk, potentially straining the Trump-Musk alliance. The financial implications would be significant. While Bloomberg estimates Musk's net worth at approximately $433 billion, the scale of U.S. government operations dwarfs even this fortune. At the Federal Reserve's current average overnight rate of 4.33 percent, blocking $1 billion in payments for 100 days would incur nearly $12 million in interest expenses. While this sum alone might not trouble Musk, scaling it to his desired scope--or even an order of magnitude smaller than that--of blocked funding could materially impact his liquidity – and by extension, his power, which in large part comes from his ability to spend freely, whether spending $44 billion on Twitter and then thinking nothing of dropping another quarter billion dollars on his favored candidates.

The second and third scenarios, while less immediately advantageous, would serve to expose the extent of institutional deterioration to the American public. Yes, the NGOs would lose their funding and incur legal costs, potentially making themselves targets for an emboldened administration. This risk might explain their current hesitation. However, they are already targets, as evidenced by the blocking of their contractually guaranteed federal funding.

Inaction in this moment represents tacit compliance. Legal action represents resistance. Each act of compliance makes future resistance more difficult, while each act of resistance makes subsequent resistance easier.