In a recent surge of online discourse, former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has come under fire on X (formerly Twitter) for allegedly accepting bribes disguised as speaking fees. Notably, users such as @WallStreetApes have claimed that Yellen was “bribed by Wall Street, making over $7 MILLION in ‘speaking fees.'” These allegations have been amplified by Elon Musk’s new AI entity, DOGE, which purports to have uncovered these financial dealings.
However, these claims, while sensational, do not introduce new information. Yellen’s substantial earnings from speaking engagements were publicly disclosed during her nomination as Treasury Secretary. According to a 2021 Politico article, between 2018 and 2020, Yellen earned over $7.2 million from various corporations, including Citi, Goldman Sachs, Google, and the hedge fund Citadel. Specifically, she received nearly $1 million for nine speeches to Citi and more than $800,000 from Citadel.
These earnings were part of standard financial disclosures required for government appointments. Yellen pledged to consult with Treasury’s ethics lawyers regarding any matters involving firms from which she had received compensation, to prevent conflicts of interest.
The resurfacing of these facts as “new revelations” by DOGE raises questions about the motivations behind this narrative. Is this a genuine concern about potential conflicts of interest, or is it an attempt to undermine Yellen’s credibility? Moreover, what is DOGE‘s role in this? Is it a tool for transparency, or could it be wielded to manipulate public perception?
Elon Musk‘s involvement adds another layer of complexity. Known for his disruptive ventures, Musk’s introduction of DOGE into the political arena prompts speculation about his broader intentions. Is this a move to promote accountability, or does it signal a new era where AI is used to sway public opinion?
While the ethical implications of Yellen’s speaking fees warrant scrutiny, it’s crucial to distinguish between genuine investigative efforts and the repackaging of known information as scandalous revelations. As DOGE and similar technologies evolve, society must remain vigilant about their potential to both illuminate and obfuscate the truth.
In conclusion, while Yellen’s financial engagements with major corporations are documented and legal, the framing of these facts by entities like DOGE invites a deeper examination of both the messenger and the message. As we navigate this landscape, we must critically assess the sources of our information and the potential agendas they may serve.
