Commerce Secretary Faces Scrutiny Over Tesla Endorsement \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Trump administration faces new ethical concerns after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick publicly urged Americans to “buy Tesla” stock. This follows President Trump’s use of the White House lawn for a Tesla promotional event. Ethics experts warn the administration is increasingly disregarding long-standing rules meant to prevent using public office for private gain.
Quick Looks:
- Commerce Secretary Lutnick urged Americans to “buy Tesla” on live TV.
- The endorsement may violate a 1989 law banning federal employee endorsements.
- President Trump previously turned the White House lawn into a Tesla showcase.
- Past administrations enforced ethics rules, such as rebuking Kellyanne Conway in 2017.
- Trump fired the head of the Office of Government Ethics, leaving little oversight.
- Former White House ethics officials call the administration’s actions unprecedented.
- Senators, including Elizabeth Warren, demanded an investigation into Musk endorsements.
- The Commerce Department has not responded to requests for comment.
- Ethics experts warn failure to act may normalize corruption.
- Trump has also been criticized for foreign business dealings and pardons.
- Past presidents’ product mentions were personal and informal, unlike Trump’s promotions.
- Calls for investigations into both presidential actions and cabinet-level endorsements are growing.
- Watchdog groups fear a dangerous erosion of ethics and legal accountability.
Deep Look
The Trump administration’s latest brush with ethics violations has ignited fresh controversy and intensified debate about the erosion of ethical standards in the federal government. The spotlight this time falls on Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who on live television urged Americans to “buy Tesla” stock, just a week after President Donald Trump showcased several Tesla vehicles on the White House lawn in what critics have called a government-sanctioned corporate promotion.
Lutnick’s comments represent a stark departure from long-standing federal laws, notably the 1989 ethics statute that prohibits public officials from using their government positions for private gain. This statute, clarified in later regulations, explicitly bans endorsements by federal employees. While presidents are largely exempt from these rules, cabinet officials and other public servants are not — and violations have historically led to official reprimands, public rebukes, and sometimes internal investigations.
In this case, however, the silence from federal ethics oversight bodies has been deafening. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which would normally lead an investigation, has no current leader after Trump removed its former director, Walter Shaub. Trump has also dismissed several inspectors general who would typically oversee enforcement across different agencies, leaving watchdogs with little confidence that appropriate disciplinary actions will follow.
In the absence of immediate oversight, organizations like the Campaign Legal Center have stepped in. Kedric Payne, the Center’s chief counsel, filed a formal complaint urging an investigation into Lutnick’s comments. “It may seem like a small incident, but failing to address this opens the door to widespread misuse of public office,” Payne warned. “It sets a dangerous precedent where government officials act as corporate salespeople.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren and three other senators echoed these concerns in a letter sent to the OGE, calling for an investigation into Elon Musk’s involvement in government-endorsed promotions. The letter argues that while presidents are exempt from endorsement restrictions, Musk and his companies are not. The senators contend that the Tesla showcase and Lutnick’s endorsement blur the line between public service and private gain and may constitute violations of federal ethics laws and securities regulations.
Historically, presidents have maintained a delicate balance when mentioning products or companies. Harry Truman’s praise for Pillsbury flour or Ronald Reagan’s affection for jelly beans were seen as personal quirks rather than official endorsements. In contrast, Trump’s use of the White House grounds for showcasing Tesla vehicles, complete with photo ops and enthusiastic praise, crosses into unprecedented territory. Ethics lawyer Kathleen Clark pointed out, “There’s a world of difference between casually mentioning a product and staging a promotional event on government property.”
The ethical boundaries have been further tested by Trump’s business entanglements. His decision to maintain ownership of the Trump Organization while serving as president, allowing foreign governments and lobbyists to patronize his properties, raised concerns over constitutional violations under the Emoluments Clause. Attempts to host the 2020 G-7 summit at his Doral golf resort were similarly criticized as blatant efforts to profit from public office.
Former White House ethics czar Richard Painter expressed frustration at the administration’s disregard for norms. “We are witnessing a collapse of the ethical framework that has historically governed our institutions,” he said. “It’s not just about one incident; it’s about a culture where public office is increasingly treated like a platform for personal business.”
The potential consequences of these breaches extend beyond reputational damage. Experts warn that continued violations without repercussions could erode public trust in government and embolden future officials to engage in self-serving behavior unchecked. “Without accountability, corruption becomes normalized,” Payne cautioned.
Public concern appears muted, however, with many Americans seemingly desensitized to ethical lapses after years of headline-grabbing controversies. Painter noted, “The public’s tolerance for these infractions has grown alarmingly high. That apathy is dangerous.”
Comparisons have also been drawn to ethical lapses by officials in previous administrations. Painter criticized the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of foreign donations during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and pointed to President Joe Biden’s failure to distance himself from a university research institute bearing his name. However, he stressed that the current situation represents a deeper ethical decline. “What Biden did was questionable. But this — turning the government into a commercial stage — is far worse,” he said.
With the OGE currently leaderless, prospects for a formal investigation appear slim. The Commerce Department has not commented, and White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended Lutnick, praising his private sector experience and contributions to Trump’s economic policies.
For critics, the lack of accountability underscores a systemic breakdown in governmental oversight. As watchdog groups call for reforms and the re-establishment of robust independent ethics enforcement, the question remains: how far can these ethical boundaries be pushed before public trust is irreparably damaged?
Painter concluded with a sobering warning: “When the highest offices in the land become billboards for private corporations, we lose more than just trust. We lose the integrity of our democracy.”
Commerce Secretary Faces Commerce Secretary Faces
You must Register or Login to post a comment.