Dismantling Oversight: Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency"

When Donald Trump returned to the White House, he appointed Elon Musk (yes, the Tesla/SpaceX billionaire) to head a new so-called Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE" for short). Don't let the benign name fool you – this department's mission is to gut federal regulatory agencies in the name of "efficiency." As someone who's been following Musk's moves closely, I can tell you: this is one of the most brazen power grabs by a private individual in U.S. history.

Musk has openly said he wants to "delete entire agencies" of the government​. He even likened federal agencies to weeds: "If you don't remove the roots of the weed…it makes it harder [for them to grow back]. So we have to really delete entire agencies, many of them."​. In practice, that means eliminating oversight bodies that protect consumers, workers, and the environment. Since January, Musk's DOGE teams have been storming through federal departments, digging through personnel records and budgets to find what to cut​.

And they've already struck: Musk dismantled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – the agency that shields Americans from predatory lenders​. The CFPB was created after the 2008 financial crash to prevent banks and credit card companies from abusing us. Now it's effectively gone, thanks to Musk. The result? Predatory lending and financial scams can flourish with little check. I'm hearing from consumer advocates that payday loan companies and big banks are celebrating; everyday people, meanwhile, are more vulnerable to debt traps.

Another target was USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development​. Musk's team dismantled it under the rationale of saving money. In reality, USAID provides food and medical aid to impoverished regions and supports global stability. Cutting it isn't just cruel – it also creates the chaos abroad that authoritarian leaders thrive on (fascists love a good crisis to "justify" crackdowns).

Insiders say the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is next in Musk's crosshairs​. Musk has a personal grudge against the EPA because his companies have clashed with environmental rules​. With him steering this "efficiency" purge, EPA regulations on air and water are likely getting axed. That might boost short-term profits for polluting industries – but it means more poisoned rivers, dirty air, and climate damage for the rest of us. It's a classic pattern: fascist-leaning regimes slash environmental and safety regs, labeling them "burdens," while ordinary people bear the harm.

Musk's actions also undermine the basic checks and balances in government. Just like he did at Twitter (now "X"), he's demanding absolute loyalty. A recent order from Musk's department emailed all federal employees to justify their jobs in five bullet points – or be counted as resigned​. Every single worker at agencies from the SEC to the CDC got a blunt midnight ultimatum: "What did you do last week?"​. If you don't respond by Monday, you're out​. Think about that: career scientists, regulators, and public servants with decades of experience are being forced to prove their worth in a few sentences or face firing. The largest federal employee union is calling these threatened firings illegal and vows to fight them​. But even if courts intervene, the chilling effect is already there.

Why does this matter? Because hollowing out the civil service is a classic authoritarian tactic. Steve Bannon (Trump's former strategist) once talked about "deconstructing the administrative state" – essentially destroying the government's ability to check the leader. Musk is doing exactly that. By purging or intimidating regulators, the administration can do whatever it wants without expert dissent. That means if the president (or Musk himself) wants to, say, direct government contracts to cronies, roll back civil rights enforcement, or punish political opponents, there's far less resistance inside the system. Career officials either fall in line or get out.

History shows us the danger. In the early 1930s, when Adolf Hitler came to power, he swiftly neutralized independent voices in government – purging Jews and opposition members from civil service, consolidating ministries under loyalists, and abolishing anything that might constrain him. What we're seeing under Musk's "efficiency" drive is an eerie echo: the dismantling of oversight under the pretext of "streamlining."

And Musk isn't shy about the real endgame. He said it himself: "We really have here rule of the bureaucracy, as opposed to rule of the people... We want to restore rule of the people. And so that means reducing the size of the federal government, basically reducing regulation."​. It sounds populist – who likes "bureaucrats," right? – but "rule of the people" here is a smokescreen. In practice it has meant rule by Musk and his friends, without those pesky laws and experts "interfering."

As a private citizen, I find this terrifying. Musk is an unelected billionaire wielding unprecedented power over our government​. Trump gave him free rein, and Musk compares himself to a gardener ripping out weeds. Except those "weeds" are often laws that protect us, and the "garden" Musk wants is one where corporations have free run. If that's not fascist-friendly policy, I don't know what is.

Billionaires in the Cabinet: Merging Corporate and State Power

It's not just Elon Musk. Trump's entire new cabinet looks like a billionaires' club meeting at Mar-a-Lago. In fact, 16 of Trump's top 25 appointees are members of the 0.0001% – literally among the 800-or-so richest people in America​. The collective net worth of Trump's 2025 cabinet and senior staff is estimated around $460 billion​. This is an administration of, by, and for plutocrats. As the person behind CCI.Observer, I track corporate influence for a living – but even I was stunned by the sheer scale of this takeover. This isn't just the 1% governing; it's the 0.0001% – government by the ultra-rich.

Why does it matter if officials are billionaires? Because each of these people is deeply tied to a corporate empire. And now they're in charge of government agencies that can directly benefit those empires. It's the textbook definition of corporatism (a core feature of fascism): state and corporate power merged with no clear line between them.

Let me introduce a few of the key players:

• Elon Musk – "Chief Efficiency Officer" (DOGE Leader): We've discussed Musk's role in dismantling regulations. He's officially a top Trump advisor (leading the Department of Government Efficiency) with immense sway over multiple sectors. Musk controls car manufacturing (Tesla), aerospace and defense contracts (SpaceX), telecommunications (Starlink satellites), and social media (X/Twitter). Now he's also effectively controlling parts of the government that oversee those industries. Even Trump had to insist Musk would "excuse himself" from conflicts of interest​– a promise no one truly believes. As one policy watchdog put it, Musk's position gives him "means, motive and opportunity to commit corruption… influence programs in ways that financially benefit him or harm his competitors."​ The fox isn't just guarding the henhouse; the fox is rewriting the henhouse rules.
• Howard Lutnick – Commerce Secretary: Lutnick is a Wall Street billionaire (CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald). Now he runs the Department of Commerce, which oversees trade policy, economic development, and even tech regulation. Lutnick made his fortune in high finance and trading. With him at Commerce, you can bet policies will skew toward big banks and investment firms. We're already hearing rumors that antitrust investigations into certain mergers were quietly dropped. It wouldn't surprise me – Lutnick's interest is in helping large corporations (like his own and his allies') expand, not in enforcing rules that keep markets fair. He's part of that corporatist puzzle: blurring government policy with the profit goals of private finance.
• Linda McMahon – Education Secretary: McMahon comes from a billionaire family that built World Wrestling Entertainment. She's also a major political donor. Under Trump 1.0 she headed the Small Business Administration; now in 2.0 she's in charge of the Department of Education​. Why Education? Possibly to push privatization and corporate interests in schooling. McMahon has supported charter schools and vouchers, which can direct public funds to private education businesses. Expect cuts to public school funding, weakening of teachers' unions, and more "business-friendly" curricula. Fascist regimes historically love undermining independent education (they prefer indoctrination over critical thinking), and putting a corporate executive in charge of schools fits that trend. McMahon's $3 billion net worth doesn't exactly scream "I understand the struggles of public schools," does it?
• Stephen Feinberg – Deputy Secretary of Defense: Feinberg is a private equity billionaire known for owning military contractors. Now he's the number two at the Pentagon​. This is huge. It means a man who profits from defense contracts is helping run the Defense Department. The likely result: even cozier relationships with defense corporations, more contracts without competitive bids, and perhaps private mercenaries or militias gaining influence (Feinberg's firm Cerberus once owned a big security contractor). The military-industrial complex has always been powerful, but this is the complex actually in charge of the military. Historically, fascist states fuse the military with corporate interests – think of how Nazi Germany's rearmament massively enriched Krupp, IG Farben, and other companies that were essentially part of Hitler's regime. We're seeing a similar fusion: the lines between national defense and corporate profit are gone.
• Jared Isaacman – NASA Administrator: Isaacman is a young billionaire from the payments industry who also bankrolls private SpaceX flights. Now he's heading NASA​. This likely means more of NASA's activities will be handed to private companies (like SpaceX, in which he's deeply invested as a customer and partner). Public science might take a backseat to commercial projects. It's a small piece of the puzzle, but symbolic: even space exploration is being privatized under billionaires' control.
• Kelly Loeffler – Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator: Loeffler is a former Senator and financier (worth over $1 billion) now running the SBA​. The SBA is supposed to support mom-and-pop businesses. With Loeffler at the helm, I worry that aid will be skewed towards franchises and larger "small" businesses that align with the administration's friends. During COVID, we saw well-connected firms snag "small business" relief while actual small shops struggled. Expect that pattern to continue by design. Again – public resources redirected to the elite.

And the list goes on: Doug Burgum (tech billionaire and ND governor) at Interior managing public lands (likely for oil drilling and mining interests)​; Scott Bessent (hedge fund mogul) as Treasury Secretary presumably cutting taxes for the rich​; even David Sacks (Silicon Valley billionaire, close ally of Musk) installed as an unofficial "AI and Crypto Czar" at the White House​ to ensure tech regulation is virtually nonexistent. We also have lesser millionaires in roles like VP (J.D. Vance) and Defense Secretary (a TV commentator Pete Hegseth)​ – not billionaires, but chosen for loyalty and ideology.

What's the through-line? Corporate and state power are now inseparable. Policies are being made by people who are the corporations. They're writing rules to benefit their own industries, their own companies, maybe even themselves personally. This is not free-market capitalism where government is a neutral referee; this is crony corporatism where government and corporations are on the same team. That is fascism. Benito Mussolini supposedly described fascism as the merger of corporation and state – and whether or not he said that exact quote, it's exactly what he practiced in Italy.

In Mussolini's Italy and in Nazi Germany, industrialists and bankers were key backers of the regime. They got rich off government favors (weapons contracts, privatized industries, slave labor in some cases), and in turn, they supported the regime's goals. We're seeing a modern version: the billionaire class in power is enriching itself and entrenching its dominance, while aligning with authoritarian political moves. It's no coincidence that policies coming out of this administration benefit the ultra-rich and select corporations at the expense of workers' rights, minority rights, and public welfare.

Let's recall FDR's warning one more time: "That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by…private power."​ We now literally have the owners of massive private powersrunning our government. We should be extremely alarmed by this.

As an aside, I want to stress: being wealthy doesn't automatically make someone a fascist. But when a government is exclusively run by the wealthy, and they use it to protect their wealth and power at all costs, democratic equality goes out the window. That's what's happening.

Compliance vs. Resistance: How Companies Are Reacting – and Why It Matters

Fascism doesn't rise without help. Beyond those in office, a whole ecosystem of businesses has a choice: comply with the authoritarian policies or resist them. In 2025 we're seeing a stark split in corporate America. Some big companies are preemptively complying with the regime's demands or ideology – even when those go against democratic values or their own stated missions. Others are quietly (or boldly) pushing back, insisting on their values.

As consumers and citizens, we have a lot of power here. Our spending and public pressure can reward the resistors and punish the complicit. Let's look at a few examples.

Companies Aligning with Authoritarian Agendas

Many firms have come under pressure to conform to authoritarian-style policies in the U.S. and abroad, and some have preemptively aligned their practices accordingly. In early 2025, diversity and inclusion rollbacks became a prominent trend in corporate America. Following President Donald Trump’s return to office and his executive order eliminating federal DEI programs​, a slew of major companies scaled back or ended their own diversity initiatives. Significant brands such as Walmart, McDonald’s, Amazon, Ford and Lowe’s began rolling back DEI programs amid conservative backlash and fear of legal risks​. For example, Target announced in January 2025 that it would end all DEI initiatives, after facing intense criticism and threats of litigation over its 2023 Pride Month merchandise campaign​. Florida’s attorney general even sued Target, claiming the retailer misled investors by not anticipating the backlash to its LGBTQ+ Pride displays​. Target’s stock price plunged over 20% during the controversy in late 2024​, and while the company’s retreat appeased some critics, it sparked new outrage from civil rights activists (who called for boycotts over Target “caving” on diversity)​.

U.S. corporations have also shown compliance through financial support of authoritarian leaders. A striking example was the late-2024 settlement of Trump’s defamation lawsuit against ABC News (owned by Disney). Rather than fight in court, ABC agreed to pay $15 million toward Donald Trump’s future presidential library and another $1 million for his legal fees​. The network settled after a judge refused to dismiss the case, even though legal experts noted ABC had a strong defense under longstanding free-press precedent​. Observers described the deal as an unprecedented concession – essentially a major media company funneling money to Trump’s cause to avoid protracted litigation​. First Amendment advocates warned that such capitulation could encourage authoritarian-minded politicians to wield lawsuits as “weapons of blatant political suppression” against the press​.

Globally, corporations have sometimes cooperated with repressive governments in ways that align with authoritarian policies. Under Elon Musk’s ownership, Twitter (rebranded as X) has complied with an alarming 83% of censorship requests from authoritarian governments​. The platform restricted content critical of ruling parties in countries like Turkey and India – even blocking opposition voices right before elections at those governments’ behest​. Musk defended obeying these gag orders by saying Twitter must follow local law to keep its employees out of jail, stating “if we have a choice of either our people going to prison or us complying… we will comply”​. This stance allowed Twitter to continue operating in large markets, but drew condemnation for enabling authoritarian censorship​. In a similar vein, some multinational companies have chosen to maintain business-as-usual in authoritarian states despite human rights concerns. For instance, dozens of Western firms stayed in Russia after the Ukraine invasion, continuing to pay taxes that inadvertently help fund Putin’s war machine​. These companies prioritized market share over principled stands – a choice not without risk, as Western firms in Russia now cannot freely repatriate profits and face potential asset seizures by the regime​. (By contrast, more than 1,000 companies that exited Russia in protest have incurred an estimated $107 billion in losses from write-downs and lost revenue – a massive financial hit taken to oppose authoritarian aggression​.)

Companies Resisting Authoritarian Policies

Despite mounting pressure, many corporations have actively resisted authoritarian dictates – upholding commitments to labor rights, diversity, and democratic values even when governments try to intervene. Several high-profile U.S. companies have flatly refused to abandon their diversity and equity programs. In the face of Trump-era pushback on DEI, Apple’s board urged shareholders to reject a proposal to terminate the company’s inclusion initiatives, calling such a move “unnecessary”​. Similarly, Costco’s leadership and investors stood by DEI – the board unanimously opposed studying any “risks” of its diversity efforts, and shareholders overwhelmingly voted down an anti-DEI measure in 2024​. Big Wall Street banks have also held firm. When activist investors targeted Goldman Sachs with anti-diversity proposals, the bank’s spokeswoman affirmed that Goldman “strongly believes” in the benefits of a diverse workforce and remains committed to its programs​. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon publicly challenged the backlash, saying “Bring them on” and vowing to continue outreach to Black, Hispanic, LGBT, and veteran communities despite critics​. And at Microsoft, leadership doubled down on inclusion, declaring in late 2024 that “Microsoft’s diversity and inclusion work is more important than ever,” and it will remain central to the business​. In all these cases, companies chose to stick to their values and legal equal-opportunity commitments, effectively resisting political pressure from the highest levels of government. Notably, their stances have so far been buttressed by shareholders and executives who see long-term business value in diversity, even as hostile politicians threaten retaliation.

Internationally, some firms have taken bold stands against authoritarian policies at significant cost. A prominent example is the apparel industry’s response to China’s repression in Xinjiang. In 2021, Sweden’s H&M cut off sourcing from Xinjiang over forced-labor concerns, a principled stance that made it a prime target of Chinese state-backed boycotts​. The backlash was devastating: H&M’s products were scrubbed from China’s e-commerce sites and even map apps​. Once the company’s fourth-largest market, China fell out of H&M’s top 10 markets within six months of the boycott​. H&M was forced to shutter 140 stores in China as sales plunged more than 20% in the quarter following the ban​. Despite this financial pain, H&M and other Western brands (Nike, Adidas, Burberry, PVH’s Calvin Klein, etc.) largely held their ground on Xinjiang — refusing to reverse their human-rights policies​. The Chinese government responded with intimidation: officials launched investigationsl into companies like PVH for “unjustly boycotting” Xinjiang cotton​. Nevertheless, these firms have signaled that they would rather sacrifice access to a huge market than be complicit in alleged abuses, a stance praised by human rights groups​. Similarly, across Russia, hundreds of multinationals from McDonald’s to Mercedes chose to exit the country entirely in protest of the Ukraine invasion, forfeiting billions in assets to uphold democratic norms. Those exits, while costly, have been held up as examples of corporate conscience in action. Even in more politically subtle ways, companies like Disney pushed back when U.S. officials attempted to punish them for speaking out: in Florida’s 2022–2024 feud, Disney resisted Governor Ron DeSantis’s “retaliatory takeover” of its special district by filing constitutional lawsuits and publicly defending its employees’ free speech rights​. Although a judge dismissed Disney’s initial case, the company’s willingness to confront state authority signaled to other CEOs that they need not acquiesce quietly to political bullying.

Financial and Reputational Consequences

Corporate responses to authoritarian policies have produced mixed financial outcomes and reputational ripple effects. Companies that toed the line with authoritarian demands sometimes reaped short-term relief but suffered longer-term blows to public image or investor confidence. For instance, Target’s attempt to appease anti-“woke” sentiment by dropping DEI programs did not shield it from market fallout – the company’s value dropped and it now faces distrust from both conservative and progressive consumers​. By contrast, firms that stood their ground on values often gained customer loyalty and talent appeal, but at a tangible cost. H&M’s principled stand on Xinjiang hurt its bottom line severely in China​, yet it bolstered the brand’s reputation in the West for ethical leadership. Western companies that left Russia similarly relinquished short-term profits (collectively over $100 billion)​ but avoided entanglement with an aggressor regime – a trade-off that investors and stakeholders weighed in light of long-run risks.

Notably, financial markets have not uniformly punished “resisters.” After big U.S. banks publicly reaffirmed DEI, their stock prices saw no dramatic collapse; if anything, shareholders’ strong rejection of anti-diversity proposals at Costco and Apple​ suggests investors were more concerned about business performance than political posturing. In some cases, taking a stand even averted financial disaster – UPS, for example, reached a pro-labor agreement with unionized workers in 2023, avoiding a massive strike that could have cost billions (a decision in line with respecting labor rights that ultimately protected its earnings​). On the flip side, companies that aligned with authoritarian figures for favor sometimes faced blowback: Disney’s $15 million payout to Trump’s library was meant to quiet a lawsuit​, but it drew public criticism and raised concerns among journalists and investors about Disney’s commitment to free expression. Tech platforms complying with censorship have likewise seen their global trust erode – a risk for user-driven businesses.

In summary, 2025 has provided a series of real-world case studies in corporate ethics under pressure. From America’s boardrooms to China’s malls, companies are learning that their stance on authoritarian policies can swing public sentiment and share value. Whether capitulating or resisting, each choice carries consequences. Firms that aligned with authoritarian demands – by diluting diversity efforts, aiding repressive regimes, or bankrolling autocratic leaders – may gain short-term security or access, but they increasingly court legal challenges, consumer boycotts, and talent loss as a result​. Meanwhile, those that defy authoritarian edicts earn praise for leadership and uphold democratic principles, yet often shoulder significant immediate costs – from lost markets to legal battles​. Investors and stakeholders are taking note of these outcomes. As authoritarian tendencies rise in various governments, the private sector’s responses in 2025 illustrate the difficult balance between protecting the bottom line and protecting a principled reputation in the global marketplace. The financial verdict isn’t uniform, but one lesson is clear: when companies weigh profits against authoritarian pressure, the world is watching – and both market and societal reactions can be profound.

Consumer Action & Resistance: How We Can Fight Back

Now comes the most important part: What can we do about all this? It’s easy to feel powerless when giant corporations and government leaders seem complicit in creeping fascism. But as I’ve hinted throughout, consumers and citizens actually have significant power. Our choices – where we shop, what we buy, where we invest, how we voice our concerns – can push companies to change course or bolster those doing the right thing.

I write this not just as an observer, but as a fellow consumer who is navigating these decisions too. Here are some concrete strategies we can all use to resist corporate complicity and support democracy:

1. Vote with Your Wallet: Boycotts and “Buycotts”

   One of the simplest forms of direct action is a boycott – intentionally not buying from a company that’s complicit in authoritarian policies. Boycotts get a bad rap sometimes, but history shows they can be very effective when enough people participate. The Civil Rights Movement’s Montgomery bus boycott in 1955-56 is a classic example: a sustained boycott hurt the transit company’s revenue and forced an end to bus segregation. In our context, that means boycotting brands that aid or enable fascist agendas.

   • For instance, if you’re outraged by what Target did, you can choose to stop shopping at Target until they demonstrate a real commitment to inclusion again. But don’t just stop silently – tell them. Write an email or tag them on social media: “I’m a customer who left because you caved to hate. I’ll be back when you stand up for all customers.” They do pay attention, especially if thousands do the same.
   • Likewise, if Coca-Cola’s inaction on democracy bothers you, skip Coke and their other products (they own lots of drink brands – it can be a fun research project to know which). Again, let them know why. Use a hashtag like #BoycottCoke if one exists, or start one. Companies fear organized consumer backlash greatly – it’s one of the few things that can force a boardroom to take notice.

   On the flip side, consider “buycotts” – actively buying from companies that are doing the right thing to reward them. For example, make a point to fill up your gas at the station that’s union-friendly or locally owned instead of one whose owner supports extremist politics. Or buy your clothes from brands known for ethical stances (Patagonia, Levi’s, etc.) rather than fast fashion brands whose CEOs fund authoritarian politicians. When you do, tell those companies too: “I chose your product because you stand for X.” Positive reinforcement matters! It encourages those businesses to stay the course.

   A great tool is the cci.observer database (shameless plug for our site). We compile information on which corporations fund anti-democratic politicians, which ones have bent to authoritarian pressure, and which ones support democratic causes. Use our index to guide your spending. Many readers have told me they keep our “Complicit Companies” list on their phone while shopping, to avoid certain brands. That’s exactly the kind of informed consumerism that can move the needle.

2. Join Direct Action Campaigns

   Beyond your individual spending, consider joining forces with others in organized campaigns. There are already consumer-led movements and activist groups targeting corporate complicity:

   • Protests and Pickets: Keep an eye out for planned protests at stores or corporate headquarters. For example, activists have organized pickets outside Tesla dealerships to protest Musk’s actions. Peaceful demonstrators with signs reading “No Tech for Tyrants” or “Tesla: Powered by Fascism?” not only get media attention but also make other customers think twice. If you see an event like this in your area and feel safe attending, it amplifies the message.
   • Online Campaigns: Follow hashtags like #GrabYourWallet, which started a few years ago precisely to boycott companies tied to Trump. That campaign maintains a list of companies to avoid (and why) – it’s a good resource. They’ve successfully pushed some retailers to drop Trump family products in the past through public pressure. Social media storms, when coordinated, do get corporate PR departments scrambling. Trust me, I’ve spoken with PR folks who monitor Twitter and Reddit religiously during controversies.
   • Petitions and Shareholder Actions: Sign petitions calling for change in corporate behavior. For example, there might be petitions demanding Target reinstate its Pride merchandise fully and donate to LGBTQ causes as penance. Or petitions urging Coca-Cola to publicly support democratic election processes. While a petition alone isn’t magic, delivering tens of thousands of signatures to a CEO sends a powerful signal. If you happen to own any stocks (even via a 401k or retirement plan), you can also engage in shareholder activism – voting on shareholder resolutions that demand companies disclose political spending or improve ethics. There are nonprofit groups that pool small shareholders to push such resolutions. This is a more technical route, but surprisingly effective over time.
   • Support Worker Walkouts: Sometimes the resistance comes from within companies – the employees. If you hear about workers at a company staging a walkout or protest against their company’s complicit behavior (for example, if employees at a tech company protest providing surveillance tech to the government), stand with them. Boost their message on social platforms, write to the company saying you support the employees’ stance, and if applicable, adjust your patronage to show you back a company when it does the right thing internally.

3. Support Alternative, Pro-Democracy Businesses

   Not every purchase has to be from a mega-corporation. In fact, one way to undermine corporate complicity is to diversify where we spend – favoring local, independent businesses or cooperatives that are inherently more accountable to communities (and less likely to side with authoritarian government). Here are some ideas:

   • Shop Local and Small: Your neighborhood bookstore, cafe, or farmers’ market likely isn’t funding extremist politicians. By shifting some of your spending local, you’re taking power away from big corporations. Plus, you strengthen your local community – which is its own bulwark against authoritarianism (strong local economies and networks make people less dependent on distant monopolies or government handouts, and more likely to stand up).
   • Ethical Brands: When you do need to buy from larger companies, look for certified B Corporations or those with strong ethical track records. For example, if you’re outraged at, say, PepsiCo’s lobbying and want a different soda, try brands like Boylan or Jones Soda which are smaller and not known for reactionary politics. If you’re boycotting Chick-fil-A (due to their owner’s history of funding anti-LGBT causes), give your business to a local fried chicken place or a chain like Popeyes that stays out of such issues. The point is to consciously choose alternatives that reflect your values.
   • Publicly Owned Utilities/Co-ops: In some sectors, you can opt out of corporate structures entirely. For example, banking with a credit union or small community bank keeps your money away from the big banks that might be funding authoritarian actors. Many credit unions and community banks have mandates to invest locally and ethically. Similarly, buying from food co-ops or community-supported agriculture means you’re not feeding profit to a faceless corporation.
   • Companies that Take Stands: Some big companies have earned trust by actively defending democratic principles. For instance, a few tech companies like Microsoft and Apple resisted DOJ demands that they felt were unconstitutional (Apple famously refused to build a backdoor to unlock iPhones for the FBI, citing privacy rights). While no giant company is perfect, I personally feel better supporting those that at least sometimes put principles over immediate profit. Do a bit of homework – a company’s press releases or an internet search can tell you if they’ve had any notable stances.

   By shifting our consumption deliberately, we send a market signal: there’s money to be made in being pro-democracy. If Costco and others reap rewards while complicit companies falter, it creates competitive pressure for the rest to shape up.

4. Ethical Investing: Put Your Money Where Your Morals Are

   This one might not apply to everyone, but if you have any investments (retirement fund, stocks, mutual funds, etc.), you can align those with your values too. Money talks in the corporate world, and investors demanding change can’t be ignored forever.

   • Divest from Complicity: If you learn that a mutual fund you own includes stocks of companies deeply complicit in authoritarianism, you can move your money to another fund. There are now “ESG” (Environmental, Social, Governance) funds that try to screen for more ethical companies (though ESG has its flaws and has become a political football itself, the idea is to avoid the worst actors). For example, there are funds that exclude gun manufacturers, or tobacco – maybe soon there will be funds excluding “democracy-undermining companies.” Ask your financial advisor or look at fund prospectuses; they are required to list holdings.
   • Support Pro-Democracy Investments: Some investment firms or advocacy groups are exploring “democracy funds” – like a fund that invests in companies with high scores in political transparency, worker rights, and community responsibility. While these are relatively new, keep an eye out. Even without an official fund, you could DIY by picking a basket of companies you believe in and investing in them (if you’re into stock picking). It might be small, but if enough people do it, it nudges stock prices and management behavior.
   • Shareholder Activism: As mentioned, if you own shares, vote your proxies. Every spring, companies send out proxy ballots for shareholders to vote on directors and resolutions. Often, shareholder activists file resolutions like “require disclosure of political contributions” or “tie executive pay to diversity goals.” Big institutional investors often vote those down, but if individual shareholders band together, these resolutions can get higher support and pressure management. Even a 30% vote in favor is usually enough to make a board take notice on a social issue.

   You might think, I’m just one person with a few hundred dollars invested, what difference can I make? But collective action is the key. There are millions of small investors. If even a fraction align their investments with democratic values, that’s billions of dollars moving — a language CEOs and boards absolutely understand.

5. Advocacy and Staying Informed

   Apart from market actions, don’t forget the power of your voice as a citizen. Advocate for systemic changes that rein in corporate complicity:

   • Support Stronger Regulations and Laws: Ironically, while we’re fighting deregulation by Musk’s DOGE, we as citizens can push our representatives (especially at state and local levels, or in Congress if they’re willing) for laws that increase corporate accountability. For example, antitrust enforcement – breaking up monopolies – would reduce the power of any one corporation to aid authoritarian control. Campaign finance reform (getting corporate money out of politics) is crucial long-term to stop the billionaires’ club in government. These may sound like big heavy lifts (and they are), but public pressure does influence politicians, especially outside the authoritarian circle. Write to your city council, your governor, your Congressperson. Demand they protect your state’s agencies from Musk’s interference, or pass transparency laws for corporate political spending. Many states still have strong autonomy – they can, for instance, enforce state antitrust laws or environmental rules even if feds won’t. Encourage them to be a counterweight.
   • Use Independent Media: Authoritarians thrive on misinformation. One reason corporations get away with complicity is that people don’t know it’s happening. By reading and sharing independent journalism that exposes these links, you counter that. If you found this article useful, share it with friends or on social media. The more people know, the more collective consumer action we can generate. There are also other great resources – e.g., Popular Information (an investigative newsletter) has done deep dives into corporate funding of extremist politics, and ProPublica often exposes regulatory rollbacks. Share these findings widely. Knowledge is contagious and empowering.
   • Engage in Conversations: Talk to your family and friends about these issues. It might be uncomfortable, but it’s important. Not everyone sees the connections between, say, where they shop and the health of our democracy. You don’t have to be preachy; sometimes just mentioning, “Oh I stopped buying Brand X because I learned they were supporting that voter suppression law – did you hear about that?” can spark awareness. Personal recommendations go a long way: “I switched to [alternative product] because the company actually treats people right.” These micro-discussions, multiplied, change consumer culture.
   • Protect Yourself Online: A quick tip – some authoritarian tactics involve tracking and retaliating against dissent. Be mindful of digital security. Use private modes or VPN if researching controversial topics, secure your social media accounts, etc. This isn’t directly consumer behavior, but it’s personal safety as a resistor. There have been instances of regimes pressuring companies to hand over user data to identify dissidents. Using products from companies with strong privacy stances (like [cb code="AAPL"]Apple[cb]’s iPhone encryption, or using [cb code="SGNL"]Signal[cb] messenger) is part of resisting the surveillance state that props up fascism.

   Lastly, a strong disclaimer: We at cci.observer are not telling anyone to recklessly harm businesses or engage in illegal activities. All the actions suggested above – boycotts, protests, shifting spending – are legal, time-honored forms of civic engagement. The key is informed choices. Always do your own research as well. Our role is to provide information (with citations) to help you decide. In the end, you decide what aligns with your conscience. Make sure, whatever you do, that you’re comfortable with it and understand the impact. And remember, the goal isn’t to create economic chaos; it’s to apply strategic pressure on powerful institutions to respect democracy and human rights.

   We live under a government that’s hostile to oversight, but ironically it’s very sensitive to market movements and public sentiment (Trump, for one, hates bad press about the economy or boycotts). That’s our leverage.

Moving Forward

In closing, I want to emphasize hope. Writing about the “resurgence of fascism” is heavy stuff, but I genuinely believe we, the consumers and citizens, can stop this trajectory. Corporations might have enormous influence, but we finance them. Every product on their shelf, every dollar in their bank, ultimately comes from people like us choosing to give it. If we collectively choose differently, corporations will shift. Some already have shown they will, when public pressure mounts.

History gives us heroes in this realm too: people like the Danish workers who refused to service Nazi ships, effectively boycotting the occupation; or the truck drivers in Chile who struck against Pinochet’s orders at personal risk; or more recently, the employees at large U.S. tech firms who said “no” when their bosses wanted to help censor the internet for authoritarian governments – and won policy changes. Resistance comes in many forms.

Right now, resistance can be as simple as where you shop and what you say. It all adds up.

At CCI.Observer, our motto is “Stay informed, stay engaged.” You’ve done the first by reading this far. Now, I encourage you to do the second. Pick one action – however small – and do it this week. Maybe it’s not buying from that complicit brand, maybe it’s sharing a link about Musk’s agency purge with a note of concern, maybe it’s switching where you bank. Then next week, do another. These steps, multiplied by thousands of us, are how we change the course of this country’s corporate complicity.

Democracy is not just a political system; it’s something we build (or erode) through everyday choices. Let’s choose wisely, with eyes open. As a first-person witness to these trends and as a participant in the economy, I’m going to follow my own advice – and I hope you’ll join me.

Sources