• Bernie Sanders says Elon Musk is using his wealth and political clout to undermine US democracy.
• Musk lambasted a government funding deal and said a shutdown would be the Democrats' fault.
• "Are Republicans beholden to the American people? Or President Musk?" Sanders asked on X.

Elon Musk is wielding his immense wealth and political power to pressure US lawmakers, shifting America from democracy to oligarchy, Sen. Bernie Sanders says.

In two recent X posts, the Vermont senator called out Musk's influence over Republicans and his warnings to legislators if they don't vote the way he wants.

"The US Congress this week came to an agreement to fund our government," he wrote late Wednesday. "Elon Musk, who became $200 BILLION richer since Trump was elected, objected. Are Republicans beholden to the American people? Or President Musk? This is oligarchy at work."

"Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is threatening to unseat elected officials if they do not follow his orders to shut down the government during the holidays," he said in a Thursday post. "Are we still a democracy or have we already moved to oligarchy and authoritarianism?"

Musk blasted the funding bill in question as bloated and overcomplicated and wrote on X that "any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!"

He threw his weight behind Republicans' alternative bill, hailing it as cleaner and simpler. Moreover, he posted that it would be the Democratic Party's fault if an agreement isn't reached and the government shuts down.

Both Trump's team and Musk have pushed back against the idea that he's pulling Republicans' strings. Musk has said he's only bringing things to the attention of his followers, and they're free to voice their support.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO's net worth hit a record $486 billion on Tuesday, up $257 billion from the start of the year — a figure that exceeds the fortune of the world's second-richest man, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Tesla stock has slid since then, but Musk was still worth $455 billion at Thursday's close.

As Sanders wrote, Musk's wealth surged after President Trump's election victory as Tesla stock rode a broader market rally, and investors wagered the automaker would benefit from Musk's close ties to the White House. Additionally, SpaceX was valued at a record $350 billion this month, boosting the worth of Musk's stake in the rocket company.

Sanders has called out Musk several times in his criticisms of wealth inequality, which often single out billionaires for having too much influence and paying too little in taxes.

"Never before in American history have so few billionaires, so few people had so much wealth and so much power," he said in a clip from "Meet the Press" that he recently shared on X.

"We can't go around the world saying, 'Oh well, you know in Russia, Putin has an oligarchy," Sanders continued. "Well, we've got an oligarchy here, too."

The progressive lawmaker has also clashed with Musk's Big Tech peers. Sanders recently told Bill Gates that he was a "very innovative guy" who deserved to be financially rewarded for his contributions to society as Microsoft's cofounder — but not to the tune of billions of dollars.

"How much do you deserve? Can you make it on a billion? Think you could feed the family? Probably. Pay the rent? Maybe," Sanders quipped.

In response to Sanders saying billionaires shouldn't exist in 2019, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, now the world's third-richest person, agreed that "some of the wealth that can be accumulated is unreasonable."

• Sen. Bernie Sanders says Amazon's focus on speed leads to "uniquely dangerous" workplaces.
• In a new report, which Amazon disputes, Sanders says its injury rates are worse than it lets on.
• Amazon is such a large employer it tilts the calculation of national statistics, the report finds.

Jeff Bezos once said Amazon would become "Earth's Safest Place to Work," but Sen. Bernie Sanders says the e-commerce juggernaut isn't even the safest place to work in its own industry.

A sweeping new report from the Sanders-led Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) says that Amazon's focus on speed leads to "uniquely dangerous" warehouses.

In the report, which Amazon, in a response updated on December 16, disputes as "fundamentally flawed," Sanders said the company's workplace injury rates are worse than it lets on, with nearly twice as many recordable injuries per 100 workers occurring at Amazon than at non-Amazon warehouses in each of the past seven years.

All US employers, including Amazon, must report to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration any injuries that cause "death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness."

The report also said that Amazon, in public documents and reports to the committee, "repeatedly compared the injury rate for its warehouses of all sizes to the industry average for large warehouses," which have 1,000 or more employees. Only 40% of Amazon's warehouses have that number of workers, it said.

The comparison is likely more favorable as "the injury rate for the subcategory of large warehouses is consistently higher than the overall injury rate for the entire warehousing industry," according to the report.

"We benchmark ourselves against similar employers because it's the most effective way to know where we stand," Amazon said in response to the report. "Putting ourselves in a different category would be misleading."

It also estimated that about two-thirds of large warehouses are Amazon's, and it employed nearly 80% of all of the workers at facilities of that size.

In other words, although Amazon compares its rate against national averages compiled by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for a subset of the warehouse industry, the report finds that Amazon is such a large employer it tilts the calculation of national statistics.

While Amazon has promoted its success in bringing its reportable injury rate down since 2019, the HELP committee's analysis showed that year had an unusually high rate of 9.01, while its long-term trend has remained relatively flat since 2017 between 6.54 and 7.74. The overall industry range in that period was 4.8 to 5.7, and the non-Amazon range was 3.17 to 4.18, according to the committee's analysis.

The report attributed much of the elevated injury rates to Amazon's "obsession with productivity and speed," which it said drives workers beyond safe limits.

"There is not a safe way to make rate without being injured," one worker identified as RN told the committee, referring to the target number of items processed per shift. "There is not a single person I worked with while I was at Amazon that didn't have an injury."

"Our safety progress is well documented, and we're proud of it," the company said. "We'll continue to invest in safety and continuous improvement for years to come as we work toward being the very best in the industries in which we operate."

If you are an Amazon worker who wants to share your perspective, please contact Dominick via email or text/call/Signal at 646.768.4750. Responses will be kept confidential, and Business Insider strongly recommends using a personal email and a non-work device when reaching out.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had two thoughts about President Biden pardoning his son Hunter Biden after previously saying he would not, while talking to NBC's "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker on Sunday.

"When you have his opponents going after his family as a father, as a parent, I think we can all understand Biden trying to protect his, his son and his family," Sanders said. "On the other hand, I think the precedent being set is kind of a dangerous one. It was a very wide open pardon, which could, under different circumstances, lead to problems in terms of future presidents."

Despite that, Sanders believes that Biden leaves a "strong legacy" due to being progressive on domestic policies. He also said that "the economy today in many ways is in very strong shape."

Sanders even went as far as to say Biden was the most progressive president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

ILLINOIS GOVERNOR SAYS 'VIOLENT' ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE DEPORTED, OPEN TO MEETING WITH TRUMP OFFICIALS

Discussing the minimum wage, Sanders told Welker he would work with President-elect Trump to raise it, as it has stood at $7.25 an hour since 2009.

Welker said Trump acknowledged it was too low, but Sanders said the last time he tried to get it raised to $15 an hour was two years ago and no Republicans voted for it. 

FORMER DEM CONGRESSMAN WHO LOST BY 109 VOTES IN 2020 CONFIRMED TO LIFETIME JUDICIAL SEAT

"Look, a $7.25 per hour minimum wage is an absolute disgrace," Sanders said. "We have millions of people in this country who are working for starvation wages. They cannot afford housing, that cannot afford to adequately feed their kids."

Sanders now believes the minimum wage should be $17 an hour, and hopes lawmakers "can work in a bipartisan way to finally accomplish that goal."  

Washington, D.C.-area restaurants once again will not be free from politics as the Trump team prepares to settle into the nation's capital for a second term. 

Food workers inside the Beltway are prepared to refuse service and cause other inconveniences for members of the incoming Trump administration, but this is not the first time the administration and allies will have to deal with harassment while sitting down to dinner.

In September 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife were harassed at Fiola, an upscale Italian restaurant in Washington, D.C. Protesters confronted them over Cruz’s support for then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during his contentious confirmation hearings. Videos circulated online showing demonstrators shouting at the couple, chanting, "We believe survivors." Cruz and his wife eventually left the restaurant due to the altercation.

WASHINGTON, D.C., POLITICAL BAR TAKES DOWN REPUBLICAN SYMBOL AFTER FIERCE BACKLASH

This incident was part of a broader wave of confrontations involving Trump administration officials and allies over the summer that year.

As such, in June 2018, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen was confronted by protesters at MXDC Cocina Mexicana, a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C., over the Trump administration's family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border. Protesters chanted, "Shame!" and called her a "villain," forcing her to leave.

Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, known for his role in shaping immigration policy, recounted an incident when he went to pick up an $80 sushi order from a restaurant near his apartment that same month. As he left, the bartender followed him outside, called out his name and, when Miller turned around, gave him a double middle finger. He threw away the sushi out of fear someone in the restaurant had tampered with the food, the New York Post reported at the time.

DC FOOD WORKERS VOW TRUMP OFFICIALS WON'T FEEL WELCOMED WHEN DINING OUT IN NATION'S CAPITAL

Also in June 2018, the owner of The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, asked then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave, citing opposition to the Trump administration's tough immigration policies. 

Industry veterans, bartenders and servers in the nation's capital told the Washingtonian this week that resistance to the Republican figures in the progressive city was inevitable and a matter of conscience. 

BIDEN ADMIN SETS NEW TARGET TO TRIPLE US NUCLEAR CAPACITY FROM 2020 LEVELS

"You expect the masses to just ignore RFK eating at Le Diplomate on a Sunday morning after a few mimosas and not to throw a drink in his face?," said Zac Hoffman, a Washington, D.C., restaurant veteran who is now a manager at the National Democratic Club.

Not every liberal hospitality sector worker in the report planned to protest the incoming administration while doing their job, however. 

A bartender named Joseph said while he was disappointed by the election results, he was looking forward to higher tips with more Republicans in Washington.

Fox News Digital's Kristine Parks contributed to this report.

Sky-high credit-card interest rates are not popular. The idea of capping them, however, is popular — which is why politicians on both sides of the aisle are talking about limiting just how high credit-card companies can drive their rates. The issue is making for some perhaps unexpected bedfellows, a potential team-up you wouldn't expect. Such a cap would be a very big deal, shaking up the industry and Americans' access to credit. But just because both sides have hopped onto the idea doesn't mean it will actually happen. That will come down to whether everyone's actually serious about it, and there are reasons to have some doubts.

On the campaign trail, now-President-elect Donald Trump floated the idea of putting a temporary cap of 10% on credit-card interest rates to let people "catch up" on their debt, declaring that "we have no choice" but to do it. Now that he's headed to the White House, the message coming from some progressive voices is basically: OK, go ahead. Sen. Bernie Sanders said on X that he looked forward to Trump "fulfilling his promise" for an interest-rate cap, and reiterated the point in a recent interview with Business Insider. "He said, you know what, credit-card interest rates, which in some cases right now are 20, 25%, should not be higher than 10%. Well, you know what? I agree with that," Sanders said. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is singing a similar tune. "Bring it on," she said in an interview with Politico.

The banks and credit-card companies are not happy about the notion of a rate cap — the financial industry has a tendency to set its hair on fire whenever there's a whiff of a threat to a revenue stream. In reaction to Trump's campaign-trail remarks, the American Bankers Association said a rate cap would "result in the loss of credit for the very consumers who need it the most" and push them toward "less-regulated, more risky alternatives including payday lenders and loan sharks."

Matt Schulz, the chief credit analyst at LendingTree and the author of "Ask Questions, Save Money, Make More," said there's "no question" a 10% interest-rate cap would have a significant impact, which could include credit being restricted and rewards being reduced. "But it's always important to remember that the banks have lots of buttons to push, lots of levers to pull to regain revenue," he said.

Perhaps the bigger point here is that in an election year in which people expressed their dissatisfaction with the state of the economy, politicians have identified a salient issue that could seemingly help alleviate many Americans' financial burden. And when there's a seemingly popular solution, a lot of politicians want to hop on board. Focusing on credit-card companies and banks is an obvious move to speak to average people's money-related concerns, whatever your political stripes. Actually delivering that relief, however, is another question entirely.

You probably don't know exactly what your credit-card interest rate, or annual percentage rate, is — that's fine; a lot of people don't — but if you take a look at it, you might be surprised to see just how high it is. The average credit-card interest rate for new card offers is 24.43%, according to LendingTree — up about 10 percentage points from a decade ago. Interest payments are also becoming an increasingly important moneymaker for credit-card companies — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates they earned an extra $25 billion in revenue in 2023 by raising their rates. The margins they're making on APRs on revolving credit, meaning debt consumers carry month to month and don't pay off, are now at a record high.

"Obviously, the interest rates have to respond to changing market conditions, and we've definitely seen that happen. But we've seen that at the same time, they're baking in additional margins into those rates that go toward profit," said Julie Margetta Morgan, the associate director of research, monitoring, and regulations at the CFPB. "It's connected to the use of APRs as a center for profitability."

Margetta Morgan pointed to rewards. While credit-card rewards have typically been funded by interchange fees — the small fee a merchant pays every time you swipe your card — issuers are using interest rates paid on debt to fund them, too.

"Increasingly, the interchange may not be covering the cost of the reward programs or generating profits that justify the rewards," she said. "And then you can see rewards go from a program to entice people to spend more to drive interchange revenue to a program to entice people to spend more so that they end up revolving and paying interest."

These higher interest rates are also coming at a time when Americans have a lot of credit-card debt. Credit-card balances in the US rose to a record $1.17 trillion in the third quarter of the year, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. You can see the problem. And as interest rates increase, it's becoming even more expensive to deal with the debt. Given this double whammy, a lot of people see an interest-rate cap as a solution: Schulz said that in LendingTree's surveys, about three-quarters of consumers supported a cap on credit-card interest rates, and of those who do, two-thirds said they'd support it even if it meant lower rewards. Six in 10 said they would support it if it meant less access to credit for people with not-so-great credit scores.

"It's not hard to understand the frustration," Schulz said.

On its face, a 10% interest-rate cap sounds like a good deal to a lot of consumers, especially at a moment when interest rates are so high. (Seriously, for some retail cards, APRs are in the 30s.) It also sounds like a good idea to populist-minded politicians, from Trump to Sanders. As to what it might look like in terms of policy, it's complicated.

Chi Chi Wu, a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, told me they would "welcome the conversation" about a national interest-rate cap, though she expressed some doubt that Trump was serious about it, given that Elon Musk posted "Delete CFPB" a few weeks ago on X. "I question the sincerity of the Trump team's willingness to protect consumers when one of their key people, Elon Musk, has called for the abolishing of the most important agency protecting consumers' wallets," she said.

Musk aside, Wu said consumer advocates have generally supported rate caps at a national level. High interest rates can make debt impossible to pay off, leading people into a spiral where the amount they owe just keeps growing even as they try to pay it off. This is often true of predatory payday lenders, but it can also apply to credit cards — if you owe $5,000 on a store card and pay just the minimum $25 a month, you're in trouble. While some states have caps, lenders are usually able to get around them by setting up shop somewhere else. Banks charge interest rates in accordance with the states they're based in, not where their customers might live. On the other side, banks and credit-card issuers say that a 10% rate cap would ultimately come back to bite consumers — high interest rates allow these companies to make up for losses incurred from risky borrowers declaring bankruptcy or otherwise failing to pay back debt, and they say if they can't charge the high rates, they can't take on the risk. If that revenue stream shrinks, the issuers argue they would have to cut back on rewards and stop issuing credit cards to people with low credit scores and low incomes. To some extent, of course, banks will say that because they don't want any threat to any revenue stream. At the same time, a cap would make an impact on their balance sheets, though it's not entirely clear how severe it would be.

Natasha Sarin, a law professor at Yale and former counselor to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has been a quite vocal critic of the proposal for a 10% rate cap. In a Washington Post op-ed, she said it would make credit cards harder to get, especially for riskier borrowers who might then turn to payday lenders that get them into even more trouble. She points to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which became law in 2009. Among other measures, the law requires issuers to notify customers of interest-rate increases 45 days in advance, limits some fees, and restricts credit-card companies from targeting consumers under 21. Sarin argues that while the CARD Act saved consumers $12 billion a year from the regulations overall, some people were harmed and shut out of the system.

"Certain types of borrowers found that their cost of credit increased and got less access to credit. These were often younger people without credit history," Sarin told me in an interview.

Aaron Klein, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Department of Treasury under President Barack Obama, echoed the argument that a 10% rate cap is "too low" and would be a mistake. He said he would be more comfortable with a 36% cap — the limit for interest rates on consumer loans for active-duty service members under the Military Lending Act. Basically, if that's a good protection for the military, everyone should get access to it. "Thirty-six percent has proven to be a more politically and more sustainable cap for unsecured lending," Klein said.

Of course, there's a lot of space between 10% and 36%. Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced a bill in 2019 proposing a 15% cap, though it didn't get far. Margetta Morgan, from the CFPB, pointed out that credit unions have an 18% rate cap and are able to make it work.

"The data that CFPB has suggests that credit unions have been able to offer credit to a variety of people at or below that cap successfully over the years," she said. "And the big problem that they have is that they actually can't compete with the larger credit-card issuers who have the larger budgets for rewards programs, advertising, and merchant partnerships and pay for that increasingly with high interest rates."

An interest-rate cap would likely cause some disruptions, but banks and credit-card companies are very good at figuring out how to make things work and keep growing their businesses. They've done it before.

After the CARD Act, things were "chaotic" for a while, Schulz said, and one credit-card issuer went as far as to jack up its interest rate to 79.9%. "But then eventually everything settled back down into where we are now and record profits and that sort of thing," he said. "That's probably similar to what we would see if a rate cap hit. There would be a little bit of chaos for a while while banks figured out how to make their money again, and then everything would go forward."

That could include inventing fees — where one door closes in fee-land, another door opens. But it could also include a cutback on rewards, which are a regressive mechanism that tends to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Also, there's no rule saying banks are entitled to a certain amount of profits.

As mentioned, as much as one can debate the policy implications of an interest-rate cap, the politics of it are the primary issue. The central question is how serious politicians in Washington are about making it happen. Nearly every person I reached out to for this story opened with the caveat that they think a 10% cap is not a serious proposal from the president-elect. Consumer advocates say that while, sure, they're delighted to talk about it, just like Sanders and Warren, they do not see Trump putting it high on his priorities list.

"Smoking out the false populism of Trump's actual policies, as opposed to his rhetoric, can never be a bad thing," said Carter Dougherty, the communications director at Americans for Financial Reform, a consumer-advocacy group. "That said, color me skeptical that the Trump administration or congressional Republicans will actually try to do something to bring down the high costs of credit cards."

"When Trump said that, that was pandering with zero forethought and zero commitment," Klein said. He added that in 2016, Trump campaigned on implementing an updated version of Glass-Steagall, which separated commercial and investment banking and was repealed in 1999. "Once elected, he immediately moved to deregulate the banks," Klein said.

The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

A rate cap isn't the only solution to America's ballooning credit-card-debt problem and just how expensive it is to carry debt. The credit system is very complex, and reasonable minds might disagree on what's the right fix. Some consumers may be willing to give up rewards if that means a fairer, less expensive setup; others won't. One could also argue that the required minimum payments on credit cards should be higher so that people don't languish in debt for so long, or that it's actually OK for some people to not have access to endless amounts of credit they have no chance of paying back. Even if immediate action might not be on the table, that politicians are paying attention to the issue at all indicates there's a problem.

Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — who just won re-election to another six-year Senate term last month — has said that his upcoming term will likely be his last.

"I'm 83 now. I’ll be 89 when I get out of here. You can do the figuring. I don’t know, but I would assume, probably, yes," Sanders said when asked if his fourth term will be his final term, according to Politico.

Fox News Digital reached out to Sanders' office to request comment from the senator.

BERNIE SANDERS EXCORIATES DEMOCRATIC PARTY, CALLS CAMPAIGN 'DISASTROUS' AFTER TRUMP VICTORY

The left-wing lawmaker, who took office in 2007, will begin another Senate term next month. He had previously served in the House chamber for 16 years from early 1991 through early 2007. 

Sanders lost a Democratic presidential primary bid to Hillary Clinton in 2016, then tried again during the next presidential election cycle, but ultimately dropped out.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who is currently 91-years-old, won re-election in 2022 at the age of 89, and will be 95 by the end of his current term.

BERNIE SANDERS ADMITS ‘ELON MUSK IS RIGHT’ TO SLASH PENTAGON WITH DOGE: ‘LOST TRACK OF BILLIONS’

Sanders unloaded on the Democratic Party after President-elect Donald Trump's decisive victory in the presidential contest last month.

"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well," Sanders declared.

"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign?" he asked. 

SENATE REJECTS BERNIE SANDERS' EFFORT TO BLOCK WEAPONS SALES TO ISRAEL

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Sen. Bernie Sanders says upcoming term will 'probably' be his last"Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not," he said in the statement.

• The UHC CEO killing has led to an outpouring of frustration toward the healthcare industry.
• Some progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill say it's the "right time" to talk about it.
• "I think for people who are surprised, it's a wake-up call," said Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

In the wake of the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, lawmakers are weighing in on the crime and the reaction to it, including expressions of frustration many Americans feel toward the healthcare system.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told Business Insider on Wednesday that the rapturous online response to the shooting and the valorization by some of the suspect, Luigi Mangione, was indicative of a "mass bubbling of resentment around the precarity that people have been living with."

"Of course, we don't want to see the chaos that vigilantism presents," said Ocasio-Cortez. "We also don't want to see the extreme suffering that millions of Americans confront when your life changes overnight from a horrific diagnosis, and people are led to just some of the worst, not just health events, but the worst financial events of their and their family's lives."

She added, "I think for people who are surprised, it's a wake-up call for how much of this exists in our society."

Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida, who began his political career as a gun violence prevention activist, told BI that he's "against gun violence in all forms," but that he understood some of the reaction.

"There's so much animosity and hatred of this system that people are looking beyond maybe their typical moral scope to meme this guy, or to praise him, because the issue is just so pervasive," he said. "That's something to take note of."

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts told HuffPost that the shooting was "a warning" to the healthcare industry — though she later told the outlet in a statement that she "should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder." Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont told the outlet that the "outpouring of anger at the health care industry" showed that "millions of people understand that health care is a human right."

Not all lawmakers on Capitol Hill are taking this approach — both Republicans and Democrats have opted to condemn the shooting and leave it at that.

"It's pretty simple to me. Nobody who commits cold-blooded murder is a hero. Period, full stop," Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told BI.

"He's the asshole that's going to die in prison," Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania told NBC News about the shooter. "Congratulations if you want to celebrate that."

For some progressives, though, the praise for Mangione and the outpouring of frustration over the healthcare industry can't be ignored, even if it's coming on the heels of a murder they condemn.

"It's exactly the right time when you've got thousands of people that are sharing their stories of frustration," Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California told BI.

In his view, it's simple enough to talk about the healthcare industry while not making excuses for the alleged murder.

"There's no linkage," said Khanna. "You condemn the murder of an insurance executive who was a father of two kids. At the same time, you say there's obviously an outpouring behavior of people whose claims are being denied, and we need to reform the system."

• Bernie Sanders is taking on ultra-processed food in his final weeks leading the Senate health panel.
• Sanders wants the US to catch up with other countries, which have cigarette-style warning labels for food.
• He sees a potential opportunity to work with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on this.

In his final weeks leading the Senate health committee, Sen. Bernie Sanders is taking on "big food."

Sanders led a hearing Thursday to interrogate how ultra-processed foods affect our bodies, and how they are regulated. He is campaigning for legislation that would slap warning labels on the front of ultra-processed foods — a step other countries took years ago.

Speaking to Business Insider on Tuesday, Sanders said he sees warning labels as a necessary first step to influence food manufacturers in America to make healthier products, especially for kids.

"When a parent goes out shopping, they need to know that there are products that are just not healthy for their kids," Sanders said. "In the United States, we have not reached that stage. Other countries are doing a lot better than we are."

Obesity has more than tripled among children since the 1970s, per CDC data, and research suggests ultraprocessed foods play a significant role, though it's not clear why. What we do know is that foods high in added sugars, fats, and sodium make up a majority of the calories we consume, and drive us to eat more.

"Our kids are not healthy enough," Sanders said.

Major food companies say new labels would be expensive to produce, and that the cost would be passed onto consumers. Some argue mandatory warning labels would violate their right to free speech. They say we should stick with the current system: a voluntary policy, where companies can put health warnings on the front of products if they see fit.

A shift may be coming, in part driven by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's pick for HHS secretary who has promised to "make America healthy again" and clean up the US food system. Kennedy's message has resonated with voters as consumer demand grows for healthier food — more natural, more transparent, less processed.

Food giants are nervous about Kennedy's reign, Jerold Mande, CEO of the advocacy group Nourish Science and a senior member of the USDA during the Obama administration, told Business Insider.

"Having worked on this for decades, the level of response from companies has exceeded anything I've seen" since Michelle Obama's campaign, Mande said. "They're deeply concerned that this is going to be a change."

Sanders said he is ready to ride the MAHA wave, if that's what it will take to clean up American diets.

The pitch: Bring the US up to speed with other countries

Sixteen other countries have mandatory, front-of-package warning labels, including most of Latin America, plus Canada, Iran, Sri Lanka, and Singapore.

Sanders looks at the US's southern neighbor, Mexico, as inspiration. During our interview, he pulled up a photo of two bottles of Coca-Cola, one sold in the US and the other in Mexico. The Mexican bottle has big black octagonal boxes that say "excess sugars," "excess calories," and "caffeine warning, not recommended for children."

"That's kind of common sense," Sanders said. "I think if most parents knew that there were 10 or 15 teaspoons of sugar in this drink, I suspect many parents would say, 'Sorry, Joe, you can't have that.' It would put pressure on the industry to start producing healthier products."

The Coca Cola Company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the American Beverage Association said the industry has taken voluntary steps to curb sugar for kids, such as not advertising to children and removing full-calorie products from schools.

According to research conducted in these countries, it can work — if the front-of-package labeling is clear.

In Chile, which has similar black boxes to Mexico, people dramatically reduced the amount of sugar-, fat-, and sodium-heavy products they were buying after labels changed. Companies have also reformulated their products in the country to avoid a warning label, cutting sugar, fat, and sodium levels.

How the US can get this done remains a mystery, Katherine Miller, founder of nutrition advocacy group Table 81, told Business Insider.

"I mean, there are 20 different pieces of the federal government that regulate our eggs," Miller said. "How do we really think we're going to get front of the label, the front-of-the-package labeling in a short period of time that will align the scientific community, the food systems community, the health community, and corporations? That doesn't feel realistic."

The US is already testing out new food labels that flag bad ingredients

The Food and Drug Administration has designed two options for what these new labels could look like on the front of food and drinks.

One version would flag a product as "high in" sugar, sodium, or fat, if it exceeds 20% of the daily recommended limit. Another version would use a color-coded system to grade the levels of sugar, sodium, and fat in the product ("low" for under 5%, "high" for over 20%, "medium" for anything in between).

The agency has spent months testing both options in focus groups.

Sanders says it doesn't go far enough.

He proposed legislation that would force food companies to put a stop sign on anything ultra-processed or high-sugar, similar to cigarettes.

Sanders — who says he is "guilty as anybody else" when it comes to eating and snacking — begrudges how difficult it is to make healthy choices and how easy it is to accidentally ingest copious amounts of fat, sodium, or sugar.

"Some years ago, I was thirsty and I picked up a bottle of something, it was a juice, and I gulped it down as usual," Sanders recalled in the interview. "A little while later, my stomach, I really felt very queasy. I looked at the label and I saw the amount of sugar that was in it."

It was a lot higher than he expected from a quick glance at the bottle.

"The industry has done a very good job in selling us products that are cheap to produce, that make us unhealthy. And that's something Congress has got to deal with."

The problem: A game of whack-a-mole with food companies

The argument against front-of-package labeling, from a health perspective, is that it could delay more concrete action.

It could also lead to unexpected consequences, Mande said.

In the '90s, when he helped design the original Nutrition Facts panel, the goal was low fat. A flurry of new research had recently come out showing fat was linked to heart disease.

Food manufacturers complied, cutting fat from their products — but often swapped it for something else. Take Snackwell's, a now defunct diet cookie brand that offered the pleasure of a sweet treat without the consequences. Problem was, the brand replaced fat with refined carbohydrates.

"We didn't anticipate the harm it would cause," Mande said. Three decades later, health advocates are trying to cut refined carbs in food due to the increased risk of diabetes.

Sanders said front-of-package labeling is the best card we have to play right now.

"I think it's one thing that you've got to do," he said. "It would put pressure on the industry to start producing healthier products."

Next step: Teeing up RFK Jr.

The Senate hearing saw more bipartisan agreement than advocates expected.

"Not one Senator defended the food industry. Big food is in big tobacco territory," Mande said.

Still, it comes at an inflection point. FDA Commissioner Rob Califf is on his way out, and there's no knowing whether his nominated successor, Marty Makary, will want to follow through on his plans for front-of-package labels.

Plus, it's unclear if Makary will have the funds to do so, since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he will gut the FDA if he is confirmed as HHS Secretary. (Kennedy did not respond to a request for a comment.)

Sanders hopes this discussion will harness the buzz around Kennedy's MAHA movement to make warning labels a policy priority.

"When Kennedy talks about an unhealthy society, he's right. The amount of chronic illness that we have is just extraordinary," Sanders said.

"Anybody with a brain in his or her head wants to deal with this issue, to get to the cause of the problem. I think processed food and the kind of sugar and salt that we have in products that our kids and adults are ingesting is an important part of addressing that crisis."

In an exclusive interview with Business Insider's Mia de Graaf, Sen. Bernie Sanders talks about his push to improve labels on ultra-processed foods across the US, RFK Jr.'s plans to overhaul the industry, and the obesity epidemic.

• Most Democrats aren't interested in Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's "DOGE" initiative.
• But a handful of them are signaling an openness to working with DOGE on specific issues.
• "A broken clock is right twice a day," said one DOGE-curious House Democrat.

As Republicans rush to embrace Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's "Department of Government Efficiency," most Democrats have taken a dismissive, even adversarial approach to the new initiative.

"Musk is a narcissist, a grifter, and a self-serving plutocrat," said Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas. "I don't have my hopes up that Elon Musk is going to do anything other than really awful, stupid, self-serving stuff."

It's not hard to see why. Ramaswamy was one of the more right-wing 2024 GOP presidential candidates, while Musk — who just spent an immense sum of his own money to get Donald Trump elected — has emerged in recent years as a Democratic boogeyman. And while the exact contours of DOGE's agenda remain vague, there are already signs that progressive priorities could fall victim to Musk and Ramaswamy's proposals for deep spending cuts.

Yet a handful of Democratic lawmakers have signaled a willingness to engage, eyeing DOGE as an unlikely opportunity to push their own long-standing policy goals.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, see tackling wasteful military spending as a potential point of common cause with DOGE.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, meanwhile, became the first Democrat to join the House's DOGE caucus on Tuesday. He told BI that his "singular focus" would be restructuring the Department of Homeland Security by making the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Secret Service each report directly to the president.

"If this is where that conversation is going to happen, I'm happy to be at the table," said Moskowitz. "And if they want to do stupid stuff, I'll call it out and I'll vote against it."

The three lawmakers' DOGE-curious posturing also offers an early look at how some Democrats, fresh off of a defeat in the 2024 election, plan to cautiously engage with a Trump administration that's set to pursue a more radical transformation of the country than the first time around.

Khanna, a Silicon Valley-based progressive who remains cordial with Musk, appears to be taking the billionaire businessman seriously when he says he wants to examine the Pentagon's budget, citing Musk's past criticism of bloated defense contracts. The congressman has also previously suggested that Democrats have unduly alienated Musk in recent years.

"If Musk is going to help bring accountability to defense contractors, that's something that Democrats should welcome," said Khanna.

But other progressives who want military spending cuts are much more suspicious.

"I highly doubt that one of the largest defense contractors in the United States — and by that, I mean Elon Musk — is going to opt for the federal government to cut the money that he is receiving directly from them," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. "He relies on the federal government to give him money."

Sanders, who wrote on X that Musk "is right" when it comes to bloated military spending, may simply be using the unexpected synergy to highlight an issue he's long cared about. The Vermont senator told BI that he hasn't directly engaged with Musk, and that it remains to be seen how seriously the SpaceX founder should be taken on the issue.

"I would hope that he is serious," said Sanders. "If you want to save taxpayer dollars, you do it not by cutting programs for hungry children, but by getting rid of the waste and fraud in the military."

Despite these small areas of potential agreement, much of what Musk and Ramaswamy have floated so far is likely to be anathema to the average Democratic lawmaker. There's a reason why it's Republicans, not Democrats, who are set to meet with the duo at the Capitol on Thursday.

Last week, Musk said that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency established by President Barack Obama that regulates financial services, should be eliminated. And Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota warned that Musk and Ramaswamy want to "defund Planned Parenthood" after the duo called out the organization as a recipient of "federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended."

That's not deterring lawmakers like Khanna and Moskowitz just yet.

"Obviously, if they're targeting areas that are going to lead to less education funding or less consumer protection, we need to speak up passionately, vociferously, and oppose it," said Khanna. "But our opposition will be much more effective and reasonable if we're willing to work with them on areas where there is government fraud and abuse."

"Some of these recommendations, I'm sure, will be horrible," said Moskowitz. "But a broken clock is right twice a day, so if there are things that they find that we can improve, shouldn't we give it a chance?"

But while Khanna could end up serving on a new DOGE subcommittee set to be chaired by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Moskowitz says he's steering clear.

"I'm not interested in doing anything Marjorie Taylor Greene touches," said Moskowitz. "She's not a serious member."

• Sen. Bernie Sanders told Business Insider he's reaching across the aisle to find common ground.
• He has no qualms about working with Elon Musk on any good ideas he has about spending.
• Sanders also cited areas of mutual interest with RFK Jr. on health and Trump on credit-card debt.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is extending an olive branch to President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration.

In an interview with Business Insider on Tuesday, the Vermont senator listed areas of common ground with Elon Musk, a cochair of a new extragovernmental body aiming to cut costs, as well as with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on health and Trump on credit debt.

"If somebody on the other side has a good idea, sure, I'll work with them," Sanders, who at 83 is the longest-serving independent in Congress, told BI.

In Musk, Sanders may find an ally to cut defense spending

Sanders made headlines on Sunday when he posted on X his support for Musk's pitch to curb defense spending.

Musk, whom Sanders has previously criticized as a threat to democracy, responded with a laughing emoji and said, "Maybe we can find some common ground."

Sanders told BI he had no qualms about working with Musk on the Department of Defense's spending, or on any other good ideas he has as cochair of DOGE, the new Department of Government Efficiency announced by Trump.

"Many of the things he did during the campaign were really ugly. On the other hand, he's a very smart guy," Sanders said, adding that "he is absolutely right" to call for the first independent audit of the Pentagon in over seven years.

"We need a strong military, but we don't need all the waste and the profiteering and the fraud that exists in the Pentagon right now," he said.

While Musk has yet to outline specific plans to curb defense spending, he has criticized the Department of Defense's F-35 program and cited its $841 billion budget in a Wall Street Journal op-ed about his mission to cut costs. In April, Sanders pushed to cut $88.6 billion, or 10%, from the military budget.

The amendment was outvoted, and Sanders slammed lawmakers, saying they're pouring money into an unaudited department.

In 2021, the Pentagon said that it was trying to learn from each failed audit but that it would take until 2028 to make all the logistical changes necessary to meet standards.

The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Finding connection through Kennedy's MAHA movement

Sanders, a cochair of the Senate health committee, told BI he also saw common ground with Kennedy, particularly when it comes to ultraprocessed food.

Kennedy, Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, faces a tough confirmation hearing, given his opposition to vaccines and plans to take on food giants and industry lobbyists.

If confirmed, he has pledged to "make America healthy again" by tackling chronic disease. He promises to ban processed foods from school meals and remove food dyes from the US food system, among other measures.

Sanders is game for a shake-up of our nutrition system. This week, he's leading a Senate hearing on ultraprocessed foods, interrogating how processed products are regulated and how they affect health.

"When Kennedy talks about an unhealthy society, he's right. The amount of chronic illness that we have is just extraordinary," Sanders told BI.

He cited the millions of people living with obesity and diabetes and the ripple effects across all sectors. Diabetes care now costs the US an estimated $400 billion a year, a GlobalData analysis found. And a recent report said the military was struggling to recruit young people who meet the physical requirements to be enlisted.

"Our kids are not healthy enough. In the long run, you want a healthy society as an end in itself," Sanders said. "We want our people to have long lives, productive lives, happy lives. That's what we want. And if the industry is giving our kids food that's making them overweight, leading to diabetes and other illnesses, clearly that's an issue that we've got to deal with."

Sanders, who has previously criticized Kennedy's views on vaccines, added: "I think a lot of what RFK is saying is kind of crazy and driven by conspiracy theory. Some of what he's saying is not crazy.

"Anybody with a brain in his or her head wants to deal with this issue, to get to the cause of the problem. I think processed food and the kind of sugar and salt that we have in products that our kids and adults are ingesting is an important part of addressing that crisis."

Kennedy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sanders wants Trump to stick to his proposed cap on credit-card interest rates

While Trump and Sanders are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, they may have common ground on credit-card interest rates.

Credit-card debt held by American consumers hit $1.17 trillion in 2023, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

"Donald Trump came out with an idea during this campaign. He said, you know what, credit-card interest rates, which in some cases right now are 20, 25%, should not be higher than 10%. Well, you know what? I agree with that," Sanders said.

While Trump said a cap would be "temporary" to help Americans "catch up" with payments, the suggestion made a splash. Mark Cuban, a longtime critic of Trump, mocked him for going even further than "self-described socialist Bernie Sanders."

It would be tough to drive through Congress, as Sanders knows. He and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tabled an interest-rate cap of 15% in 2019, which went nowhere.

Now Sanders is challenging Trump to wield his strong mandate to make this a key issue.

"We'll see if Mr. Trump is prepared to keep his word. We're looking forward, and we will work with some Republicans on that issue," Sanders said.

Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"Where Trump and Republicans make sense, happy to work with them," Sanders said. "And we will be in vigorous opposition to many of their policies, which to me are extremely distasteful."

• Bernie Sanders says Elon Musk is right about the Defense Department's wasteful spending.
• The DOGE co-leader criticized the Pentagon's F-35 program and $841 billion budget last month.
• "Cool," Musk said in response to Sanders' remarks.

Elon Musk has a new supporter in his push to rein in government spending — Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

"Elon Musk is right," Sanders said of Musk's criticisms of the Defense Department's spending in an X post published Sunday.

"The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It's lost track of billions," Sanders wrote.

In November, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was tapped to co-lead President-elect Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

To be sure, Musk has yet to outline any specific cuts that the commission plans to make. But he did criticize the Pentagon's F-35 program in a series of X posts published on November 24.

Musk also referenced the Defense Department's $841 billion budget in an op-ed he wrote with his DOGE co-leader, Vivek Ramaswamy, for The Wall Street Journal on November 20.

"The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency's leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent," Musk and Ramaswamy wrote.

Sanders echoed the pair's views on Sunday.

"Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud," Sanders wrote in his X post.

"That must change," he added.

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for the Defense Department pointed Business Insider to a press briefing given by the department's CFO, Michael J. McCord, on November 15. During the briefing, McCord said the Pentagon has "a lot of work to do" on its audit performance but is "making progress."

Common ground on military spending aside, Sanders and Musk do have their political differences.

The 83-year-old is the longest-serving independent in Congress, though the progressive politician did run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020.

On Saturday, Sanders released a statement saying that America needed to "defeat the oligarchs and create an economy and government that works for all, not just the few."

"Today, in America, we have a political system that is increasingly controlled by the billionaire class. In the recent elections, just 150 billionaire families spent nearly $2 billion to get their candidates elected," Sanders said in the statement.

Musk, on the other hand, was a major contributor to Trump's 2024 campaign. The billionaire spent just under $119 million on his pro-Trump political action committee, America PAC.

"Cool," Musk said in an X post in response to a New York Post story about Sanders' remarks on defense spending.

Representatives for Sanders and Musk didn't respond to requests for comment from BI.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., appears to be in favor of the newly-established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), after slamming the Pentagon’s budget and failed audits on social media and admitting, "Elon Musk is right."

President-elect Trump tapped Musk and former GOP presidential primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to lead DOGE in an effort to stop the government’s wasteful spending.

Sanders addressed the wasteful spending on Sunday in a post on X.

"Elon Musk is right," he wrote. "The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It’s lost track of billions. Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud. That must change."

ELON MUSK SAYS THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL IGNORANCE ABOUT AMERICA'S NATIONAL DEBT

Musk responded to Sanders’ post with two American flags.

Sanders did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

The post comes as Musk continues to bash government spending on social media.

For example, he shared a post from DOGE’s X account about the California High Speed Rail Project, which was projected in 2008 to cost $33 billion, and now is projected to be between $88.5 and $127.9 billion. The post also said the estimated completion date was 2020 and, as of 2024, nobody has been transported and the majority of the railway has not been designed. The project received $6.8 billion in federal funding. The project team is now requesting another $8 billion in federal funds.

ELON MUSK WANTS TO MEET ALEX SOROS — AND SOROS SAYS HE'S OPEN TO IT

Musk wrote in a repost, "The government needs to stop wasting your hard-earned money!"

In another post shared by Musk, he is seen speaking in front of an American flag.

"The interest that we owe on our national debt is now higher than the defense budget. Over a trillion dollars and growing. The country is going to go bankrupt," he said. "That’s why we need the department of Government Efficiency, D.O.G.E., on a brass plaque on a desk."

Even last week, Musk said a significant percentage of people do not even know there is such a thing as a national debt.

US NATIONAL DEBT HITS A NEW RECORD: $36 TRILLION

"Those that do often don’t know how big it is or that our interest payments now exceed what we spend on our military. Only a small % understand that government overspending causes inflation," he said on X.

The national debt has soared past $36 trillion.

"America is going bankrupt fast," Musk warned in another post.

"The excess government spending is what causes inflation! ALL government spending is taxation. This is a very important concept to appreciate. It is either direct taxation, like income tax, or indirect via inflation due to increasing the money supply," he asserted in a tweet earlier this month.

Trump said in a statement that DOGE "will provide advice and guidance from outside of government and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large-scale structural reform and create an entrepreneurial approach to government never seen before."

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Musk and Ramaswamy noted that they will work "as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees."

Fox News Digital’s Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.