Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman warned on Thursday that there must be consequences for the latest “treason” committed by President Donald Trump and his MAGA allies, arguing that Trump and Elon Musk’s support for Vladimir Putin and their betrayal of Ukraine warrant the “seizure” of Starlink, the satellite internet service operated by Musk’s aerospace company SpaceX — a step, he contends, with firm historical precedent.

Writing in his Substack column, Krugman asks: “Did Elon Musk decide by personal fiat to cut off Ukraine’s access to vital communications?” Although Musk claims the decision was made by Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal, some U.S. officials state that Musk did indeed take it upon himself to pull the plug on Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is quoted as saying that the administration was blindsided: “There was no foreknowledge.”

“Now, perhaps Donald Trump told him to do it, sotto voce, Mafia-style,” Krugman wrote, adding parenthetically: “(‘This Zelenskyy guy is a problem. Someone should do something about it.’)” Trump, he noted, could demand — but has not — that Musk restore Ukraine’s access, leaving open whether, and how quickly, the service will be turned back on.

Amid the finger-pointing, Krugman says there is “credible” evidence that Musk was ultimately responsible. “We now need to seriously consider the implications,” he writes. “No private individual should, or indeed even have the capability to, make national security policy. Slowing down Starlink was, in effect, a U.S. intervention in a foreign conflict. It helped Russia, our long-time adversary, and hobbled Ukraine.”

As Krugman notes, if Musk does not restore that access quickly, it will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Ukrainians. He adds that while Trump and Musk are “now openly supporting Vladimir Putin,” their actions are unpopular with the American public. “Very few Americans agree that the U.S. should be supporting, not opposing, a brutal dictator’s attempt to conquer a democracy.” Polling shows that 57 percent of Americans support Ukraine, while just 4 percent sympathize with Russia.

Some have argued that Musk can do whatever he wants with his own business, but Krugman asserts that there is not only a need to take Starlink away from him, but a historical basis for doing so. “Yes, America has a market economy. And to make this economy work, we need to respect property rights,” he explains. “But we are, first and foremost, a democracy. And in a democracy, the rights of private property don’t and never have included the right to act against the nation’s interest — where democratically elected representatives of the people, not business owners, should decide what is in the nation’s interest. Capitalism is not an excuse for treason.”

The United States, Krugman observes, has nationalized businesses before. “U.S. mobilization during World War II relied overwhelmingly on private contractors,” he explains. “But these contractors weren’t free to do as they pleased. Among other things, the federal government was anxious to avoid labor conflict that might impede the war effort. So the National War Labor Board negotiated mandatory settlements between management and workers.”

Some businessmen refused to go along — most notably Sewell Avery, the chairman of Montgomery Ward, who “simply refused to comply with the terms of collective bargaining agreements that had been hammered out with the United Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.” At the time Montgomery Ward was both a major retailer and a major manufacturer, and its production of tractors, auto parts and more were important parts of the war effort. But Avery, in Krugman’s telling, “placed a higher priority on resisting unionization than on defeating the Nazis.”

“So in April 1944 FDR ordered the Army National Guard to seize Montgomery Ward’s main in Chicago,” Krugman writes. “National Guard troops literally had to carry Avery out of his office.”

While the seizure of the company was never intended to be permanent, “the principle was clear: private individuals do not have the right to undermine national security. And if temporary nationalization is the only way to stop them from doing so, so be it.”

Returning to Musk, Krugman writes: “In modern warfare, where communication and real-time information are as important as rockets and artillery, Starlink is as central to national security as Lockheed Martin. Decisions about which countries have full access to Starlink’s capacity are as much a matter of foreign policy and national security as decisions about which countries will be allowed to buy and operate U.S. high-tech weapons. Such decisions cannot, must not, be left up to private individuals. This would be true even if these individuals were patriots who supported democracy and American values. They definitely shouldn’t be left in the hands of this guy.”

Noting Musk’s declaration that he will “come after” anyone who tries to investigate him, Krugman warns that such a statement “reinforces the point that control of Starlink must, one way or another, be taken away from Elon Musk. It’s a matter of national security: we cannot let private individuals make foreign and defense policy, and it would be totally irresponsible to leave a crucial military asset in the hands of a racist, authoritarian conspiracy theorist.”

This article is based on reporting published by Alternet.