SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Former OGE chief Walter Shaub raised concerns about the ethics of President Trump's frequent trips to his properties including his golf courses, one of which he visited this month for the U.S. Women's Open Championship. (Photo: Getty)
President Donald Trump's new appointee to lead the Office of Government Ethics has displayed a free-wheeling approach and disregard to ethics rules for federal employees, including those in the Trump administration, according to former colleagues.
David Apol was named acting director of the OGE head last week, after Walter Shaub resigned in protest. Shaub has raised concerns about ethics violations in the White House including Trump's frequent trips to his business properties. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Shaub said such activities "[affect] our credibility" in the global community and that "we are pretty close to a laughingstock at this point."
Shaub has not been shy about his disapproval of the decision to elevate Apol to the agency's senior director position, characterizing Apol's view on ethics as "loosey-goosey." While the head position generally goes to the senior director's chief of staff in the event of resignation, the White House can choose to appoint a preferred candidate, allowing the appointee to avoid a Senate confirmation hearing.
According to a report in the Times, prior to his appointment, Apol "played a central role in making major ethics decisions related to the Trump administration, including reviewing the financial disclosure report and issuing certificates of divestiture for Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, and for other senior appointees."
During his tenure over the past decade at the OGE, Apol has frequently clashed with Shaub and other colleagues on whether conflict-of-interest laws should be strictly enforced. Earlier this year Apol argued that the new head of policy at the Department of Transportation, Derek Kan, should not have to sell his stock options in the car-sharing company Lyft, where he had been an executive.
Apol has also shown a desire for an ethics agency that would work less independently of the executive branch than it has in the past. As the Times reports:
Mr. Apol has advocated consulting with the White House before he issues certain policies--like one establishing rules related to legal defense funds that some Trump administration officials are setting up. He also wants to check with the White House before the office sends letters to members of Congress who have raised questions about White House ethics matters.
Other issues Apol has clashed with colleagues on include allowing federal employees to make government decisions about companies they have previously worked for and "revolving-door rules," which limit the kinds of jobs federal employees can take after leaving government. In the latter case, Apol argued that an official who had managed a government contract should be able to take a job with the company that held the contract--which is generally viewed as a way to influence the government.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
President Donald Trump's new appointee to lead the Office of Government Ethics has displayed a free-wheeling approach and disregard to ethics rules for federal employees, including those in the Trump administration, according to former colleagues.
David Apol was named acting director of the OGE head last week, after Walter Shaub resigned in protest. Shaub has raised concerns about ethics violations in the White House including Trump's frequent trips to his business properties. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Shaub said such activities "[affect] our credibility" in the global community and that "we are pretty close to a laughingstock at this point."
Shaub has not been shy about his disapproval of the decision to elevate Apol to the agency's senior director position, characterizing Apol's view on ethics as "loosey-goosey." While the head position generally goes to the senior director's chief of staff in the event of resignation, the White House can choose to appoint a preferred candidate, allowing the appointee to avoid a Senate confirmation hearing.
According to a report in the Times, prior to his appointment, Apol "played a central role in making major ethics decisions related to the Trump administration, including reviewing the financial disclosure report and issuing certificates of divestiture for Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, and for other senior appointees."
During his tenure over the past decade at the OGE, Apol has frequently clashed with Shaub and other colleagues on whether conflict-of-interest laws should be strictly enforced. Earlier this year Apol argued that the new head of policy at the Department of Transportation, Derek Kan, should not have to sell his stock options in the car-sharing company Lyft, where he had been an executive.
Apol has also shown a desire for an ethics agency that would work less independently of the executive branch than it has in the past. As the Times reports:
Mr. Apol has advocated consulting with the White House before he issues certain policies--like one establishing rules related to legal defense funds that some Trump administration officials are setting up. He also wants to check with the White House before the office sends letters to members of Congress who have raised questions about White House ethics matters.
Other issues Apol has clashed with colleagues on include allowing federal employees to make government decisions about companies they have previously worked for and "revolving-door rules," which limit the kinds of jobs federal employees can take after leaving government. In the latter case, Apol argued that an official who had managed a government contract should be able to take a job with the company that held the contract--which is generally viewed as a way to influence the government.
President Donald Trump's new appointee to lead the Office of Government Ethics has displayed a free-wheeling approach and disregard to ethics rules for federal employees, including those in the Trump administration, according to former colleagues.
David Apol was named acting director of the OGE head last week, after Walter Shaub resigned in protest. Shaub has raised concerns about ethics violations in the White House including Trump's frequent trips to his business properties. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Shaub said such activities "[affect] our credibility" in the global community and that "we are pretty close to a laughingstock at this point."
Shaub has not been shy about his disapproval of the decision to elevate Apol to the agency's senior director position, characterizing Apol's view on ethics as "loosey-goosey." While the head position generally goes to the senior director's chief of staff in the event of resignation, the White House can choose to appoint a preferred candidate, allowing the appointee to avoid a Senate confirmation hearing.
According to a report in the Times, prior to his appointment, Apol "played a central role in making major ethics decisions related to the Trump administration, including reviewing the financial disclosure report and issuing certificates of divestiture for Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, and for other senior appointees."
During his tenure over the past decade at the OGE, Apol has frequently clashed with Shaub and other colleagues on whether conflict-of-interest laws should be strictly enforced. Earlier this year Apol argued that the new head of policy at the Department of Transportation, Derek Kan, should not have to sell his stock options in the car-sharing company Lyft, where he had been an executive.
Apol has also shown a desire for an ethics agency that would work less independently of the executive branch than it has in the past. As the Times reports:
Mr. Apol has advocated consulting with the White House before he issues certain policies--like one establishing rules related to legal defense funds that some Trump administration officials are setting up. He also wants to check with the White House before the office sends letters to members of Congress who have raised questions about White House ethics matters.
Other issues Apol has clashed with colleagues on include allowing federal employees to make government decisions about companies they have previously worked for and "revolving-door rules," which limit the kinds of jobs federal employees can take after leaving government. In the latter case, Apol argued that an official who had managed a government contract should be able to take a job with the company that held the contract--which is generally viewed as a way to influence the government.