Meet the D.C. Bigwigs Literally Profiting Off Trump’s Deportations

Plus: The Constitution is clear: You can just do things.

(Composite / GettyImages / Shutterstock)

PALANTIR, THE PETER THIEL-FOUNDED software and technology company that has played a central role in helping ICE round up and deport as many migrants as possible,¹ is becoming one of the hottest and most lucrative stock picks among members of the 119th Congress.

Since President Donald Trump assumed office in January, seven members of Congress have traded the stock, according to the most recent financial disclosures. In that same time, Palantir’s value has skyrocketed, rising from $73 per share on Trump’s first full day in office to around $140 today.

The members of Congress who have traded Palantir stock in the last few months are:

• Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)²

• Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas)³

• Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.)

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)

• Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.)

• Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-Ind.)⁴

Beyond the halls of Congress, a new report published Tuesday by the Project on Government Oversight revealed that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller owns a large portfolio that includes as much as $250,000 worth of Palantir stock. That means the official directly behind the mass deportation effort is profiting from the very company being boosted by those efforts.

These types of financial entanglements have caused major headaches for past White Houses—think back to Dick Cheney’s financial holdings in Haliburton during the Iraq war. But what’s notable about the Palantir stock holdings is just how widespread it is. In addition to Miller, a dozen more White House officials and appointees are cashing in on the administration’s partnership with Palantir, according to the POGO report.

Ethics experts say Miller’s deep involvement in ICE’s efforts and his financial stake in Palantir raises conflict of interest concerns.

Palantir has attracted controversy in recent months, in part due to bipartisan anxiety about the privacy impacts from its widespread access to government databases and former employees who have decried its work with ICE.

ICE and Palantir’s yearslong relationship continues to deepen, with the technology company recently receiving a lucrative ICE contract without any competition. It’s the type of arrangement that may not bother Republicans in Congress. But it’s one that seems ripe for Democrats to look into should they retake power. That may make for some interesting oversight hearings. But it could also make for some discomfort for those Democrats who traded the stock.

A Republic, if you can extend it another 90 days

Donald Trump’s repeated refusal to enforce legislation passed by Congress, signed by his predecessor, and affirmed by the Supreme Court is one of the single clearest examples of his disregard for the rule of law to date.⁵ His latest delay—a further 90-day extension of his last order to allow TikTok to remain in operation with its current ownership—came last Thursday. That extension, like the prior one, is a direct contravention of the law.

Does Congress still see itself as an independent branch of government? The important thing is not whether you personally like TikTok or agree with the idea that it should be banned. At issue is how the rule of law is supposed to work, if it still does. The president is ignoring both Congress and the courts and elevating his own word to the status of the law. Lawmakers’ collective reaction is basically “Yeah, so? We don’t wanna be the one pissing off the youths!” No one has any interest in doing something about, or even making a peep about, the illegality of Trump’s TikTok recalcitrance.

“I don’t know,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) when I asked for his perspective on the supposed legal basis for repeatedly extending a pause on enforcing the law. “The goal should be that the Trump administration figures out how to get TikTok to basically sell out.”

When I asked if it bothered him that the administration continues to put off enforcement, he said, “No, it bothers me that they [TikTok] haven’t got it sold.” (At this point, TikTok might be wondering if they even need to try to sell.)

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) similarly expressed continued support for the sale of TikTok. “I can’t wait for the day that the Chinese Communists don’t have access to our information,” he said. “I think [a sale will] happen.” But that sale can wait, apparently, at least for another 90 days.

Perhaps the most telling response came from Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who said, “I think there’s bigger fish to fry right now.”

See, Daines has other priorities, and these 90-day pauses are making it possible for him to think about those instead of this. But the thing is, he used to think about TikTok all the time. When Joe Biden was still in the White House, Daines was kept in a state of alarm over the app, which he characterized as “a threat to our national security.”

In June 2022, he co-wrote a letter to TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew excoriating the company for prohibiting Russia-based users from seeing non-Russian footage and perspectives related to the war in Ukraine.⁶

“Alarmingly, recent reports indicate TikTok’s non-enforcement of its own purported moderation policies has allowed Russian state media to flood the platform with dangerous pro-war propaganda,” Daines wrote alongside several colleagues. “No company should find itself in the position of amplifying the Kremlin’s lies, which fuel public support for Russia’s war of choice in Ukraine.”

Now, for Daines, those Kremlin lies can fester another 90 days. That fish ain’t worth frying any more.

The apathy towards the president’s improvisational flouting of the law is emblematic of the new era of Congress. This is the era of the permanent partisan yawn; lawmakers have shown zero interest in asserting their constitutionally mandated power against the executive—“ambition . . . made to counteract ambition,” as Federalist 51 has it—because they can hardly be bothered to think about it. We’ll check back in another three months.

You gotta pump those numbers up

This Atlantic essay piqued my interest. It’s about the recent obsession with infusing everything with protein, nature’s wonder macronutrient.

Lila Shroff writes:

So why is protein showing up in iced tea? Some health experts think that the current federal recommendation is insufficient. They believe that for optimal health—to get beyond simply meeting basic nutritional needs—we should be consuming double, if not triple, the recommended amount. Some people—those who strength train, for instance—certainly benefit from increased intake. But for the average person, most experts don’t see the point in going wild with protein, as my colleague Katherine J. Wu has written.

What makes protein so appealing is that it has been offered as an answer for lots of people’s dietary goals. Want to build muscle? Eat protein. Want to feel fuller for longer? Eat protein. Want to lose weight? Eat protein. The nutrient can indeed help with all of those, but sometimes, the claims turn absurd. Cargill, the food giant, recently suggested that protein might help solve broken marriages: “Protein helps individuals become better parents, partners and employees,” the company wrote in a report this spring. In other words, protein has become synonymous with “healthy.” The message seems to be resonating: Last year, 71 percent of American adults said they were trying to consume more of it.

I have also noticed the absurd increase in protein-laced snacks and beverages. Disclosure: The Bulwark office in D.C. stocks protein-packed off-brand Cheez-Its in the break room. (They’re fine.) But in my opinion, the best proteins are from natural sources like meat, dairy, and vegetables. Whether you should include a lot of it in your diet depends on your goals. But more is better, if you ask me.

Read the whole thing. And up your protein, wimp.

1. Between 2015 and 2020, according to Migrant Insider, scores of U.S. citizens were also illegally deported; Palantir secured its first contracts with the government shortly before this period. You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few laws.

2. Khanna’s transactions are made by an outside financial adviser who manages investments for his family. The portfolio is broad-based as well, not focusing on any specific industry. Other lawmakers have outside advisers make trades on their behalf, or at least claim to, such as Greene and Bresnahan.

3. In a statement, a spokesperson for Johnson said, “Upon her swearing-in earlier this year, the Congresswoman began the process of divesting her stocks from numerous accounts, all managed by independent third parties, into ETFs and mutual funds to avoid any potential conflicts of interest with her Congressional work.”

4. Shreve sold up to $100,000 in Palantir stock on May 12 as part of a massive account closure.

5. I’m aware that there are many examples, but none as obvious, simple, and clear-cut as this one.

6. Whew. How time flies.