A leading Republican attorney, nominated by former President Donald Trump to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, has revealed an unexpected source of income. According to recent financial disclosures, Harmeet Dhillon earned a significant sum from content creation on X (formerly Twitter). This development sheds light on the growing trend of government nominees monetizing their social media presence. The nomination and financial revelations have sparked discussions about the intersection of public service and digital influence.
Harmeet Dhillon, a prominent figure in the Republican Party with over 1.1 million followers on X, has become a notable voice in conservative circles. Her nomination to a high-ranking position within the Department of Justice comes with substantial financial disclosures that highlight her diverse sources of income. Last year, she reported earning $43,531 through X’s content-creator revenue program, which rewards users based on engagement from premium subscribers. This program was introduced by Elon Musk following his acquisition and rebranding of Twitter.
Beyond her social media earnings, Dhillon's primary income stems from her law practice. She disclosed over $2 million in earnings from her firm, Dhillon Law Group, representing clients such as President Trump, Tucker Carlson, and Caitlyn Jenner. Additionally, she received a $300,000 salary from the Center for American Liberty, a nonprofit organization she co-founded, and earned $50,000 from four speaking engagements. These financial details provide insight into her extensive involvement in legal and political spheres.
Dhillon is not alone in this trend; she joins at least two other Trump nominees who have also benefited from X’s revenue-sharing model. Jay Bhattacharya, nominated for the National Institute of Health Director, earned $11,995, while Sam Brown, nominated for Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, made $5,169. All three nominees have agreed to stop monetizing their accounts if confirmed to their respective roles, addressing potential conflicts of interest.
The revelation of these earnings underscores the evolving relationship between public officials and social media platforms. As more individuals leverage online platforms for both influence and income, questions arise about transparency and the separation of personal ventures from official duties. This case highlights the need for ongoing scrutiny and adaptation in how public servants navigate the digital landscape.