The U.S. Senate has accused Musk of using public office for commercial gain, sparking related legal disputes.

Key Chapter Title List

1. Core Allegations Against Attorney General Bundy: Abuse of Public Office and Advertising Pressure
2. Background and Financial Impact of the 2023 X Platform Advertiser Exodus
3. X Corp's 2024 Policy Retaliation Threat Strategy Against Advertisers
4. Anheuser-Busch InBev Merger Case and Its Connection to X Platform Ad Revenue
5. Federal Ethics Legal Constraints on Musk as a Special Government Employee
6. Potential Criminal Violation Types: Bribery, Conflict of Interest, and Extortion
7. Call for Action to the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division
8. Warning from Historical Cases of Trump Administration's Intervention in Antitrust Enforcement
9. Review of X Corp's Past Advertising-Related Controversies (Lawsuits and Boycotts)
10. Demand for Federal Agencies' Independent Review of Merger Case and Request for Information Feedback

Document Introduction

On March 5, 2025, several U.S. Senators sent separate letters to Attorney General Pam Bundy, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Omid Assefi, raising formal allegations and concerns regarding potential legal violations by Elon Musk and his social media company X (formerly Twitter). The core controversy revolves around Musk leveraging his public office position in the Trump administration to seek commercial benefits for X Corp, raising significant questions about government ethics, the independence of antitrust enforcement, and the rule of law.

In 2023, Musk endorsed an antisemitic post and relaxed content moderation rules, leading to a surge in inflammatory content on the platform and triggering a mass exodus of advertisers, resulting in a $75 million loss in advertising revenue for X Corp that year. To recoup losses, X Corp employed pressure tactics including lawsuits against departing advertisers. After Musk assumed a position in the federal government in 2024, the company escalated its strategy, threatening advertisers with policy consequences to force their return. According to The Wall Street Journal, lawyers and CEO Linda Yaccarino of X Corp pressured advertising giant Anheuser-Busch InBev, demanding its clients increase advertising spending on the X platform, otherwise Musk might use his influence in the Trump administration to obstruct InBev's proposed $13 billion merger with a competitor—a merger currently under antitrust review by the FTC and DOJ.

As a special government employee, Musk is bound by federal ethics laws prohibiting the use of public office to coerce benefits, accept bribes, or participate in specific matters where he has a financial interest. The Senators point out that Musk's actions may violate relevant sections of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, involving multiple criminal charges such as bribery, conflict of interest, and extortion, carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. Although the Supreme Court grants the President a presumption of immunity for official acts, Musk, as a government employee, does not enjoy this privilege. His act of linking X Corp's ad revenue to the outcome of the InBev merger review constitutes a clear conflict of interest.

The letters also warn of historical precedent for the Trump administration weaponizing antitrust enforcement, such as alleged interference in the AT&T-Time Warner merger during the previous term to retaliate against CNN's reporting. The Senators emphasize that the FTC and DOJ must uphold the independence of enforcement, resist the interference of private commercial interests in the public enforcement agenda, and ensure all merger cases receive fair and impartial review. Furthermore, X Corp has a history of controversial actions including threatening brand safety agencies and suing 18 companies that boycotted advertising, further highlighting the aggressiveness of its business tactics.

The Senators explicitly state they are not taking a position on the merits of the proposed merger between Anheuser-Busch InBev and Omnicom Group itself. However, they demand that federal agencies independently evaluate the transaction and provide feedback to the Senators regarding whether Musk and his associates have interfered in antitrust work. The core demand of the letters is to uphold the authority of federal law, prevent wealthy business owners from using political influence for personal gain, ensure government agencies perform their duties free from manipulation by private interests, and defend the fairness of market competition and the principle of the rule of law.