

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.
As President Trump marks his first six months in office, United States Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today released their "Drain the Swamp Report Card" tracking 193 former lobbyists and corporate insiders who have worked for President Trump since his election, giving the president a failing grade on his pledge to "drain the swamp."
Despite signing an Executive Order promising to slow the revolving door between government and the private sector, President Trump has brought on an average of more than one swamp-creature for every day he has been in office. Over the course of his transition and during the first six months of his administration, President Trump has appointed or nominated at least 160 current and former lobbyists, including 81 individuals who were registered as lobbyists within the past two years. In addition, President Trump has relied on the advice and service of at least 37 industry insiders, including Wall Street executives and DC-based corporate consultants.
"President Trump reneged on his promise to 'drain the swamp.' Instead of turning away lobbyists and Washington insiders, he has welcomed them into the White House with open arms," said Senator Warren. "Personnel is policy, and President Trump's army of lobbyists are more interested in lining the pockets of their long-time employers and corporate buddies than in making life better for America's working families."
"We all heard the 'drain the swamp' chants at Trump rallies. Now the Trump administration is knee-deep in special interest lobbyists and industry insiders who spent their careers trying to bring special interest influence into the agencies they now lead - or simply tear the agencies down," said Senator Whitehouse. "We need an open and transparent government that fights for the health, safety, and wellbeing of the American people. Instead, we've got a government filling with swamp creatures out to rig the system for themselves and their patrons."
The report describes the breadth and depth of corporate influence on the Trump Administration, finding numerous examples of President Trump's appointees are designing policies specifically that benefit special interests. The report includes detailed descriptions of White House policies crafted by Washington lobbyists and insiders that help pharmaceutical companies, for-profit colleges, big banks, and the oil and gas industry -- all at the expense of the American people.
The "Drain the Swamp Report Card" follows a letter from Senator Warren to President Trump shortly after his election, raising concerns about the special interest lobbyists and industry insiders staffing his transition team, and promising to continue monitoring his hiring of others going forward. The report was compiled in the intervening months, after extensive research of public financial and lobbying disclosures, White House press releases, and employment histories, and lists 192 current and former lobbyists and corporate insiders employed by the Trump Transition and Administration, including:
* Geoffrey Burr, Chief of Staff at the Department of Transportation and "Confirmation Lead" for Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao during the Trump Transition. Until September 2015, Burr was a lobbyist at Associated Builders and Contractors. Burr also briefly served as the Special Assistant to the Secretary the Department of Labor, where he worked to delay the Labor Department's silica rule, which aims to protect construction workers from toxic substances in the workplace
* Michael Catanzaro, Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Energy and Environmental Policy at the National Economic Council and advisor to the Trump Transition on Energy Policy. Catanzaro is a former Partner at the CGCN Group, where he represented Devon Energy, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and Encana Oil and Gas as recently as 2017. The White House issued an ethics waiver for Catanzaro in May that permits him to "participate in broad policy matters and matters of general applicability relating to the Clean Power Plan, the WOTUS rule, and methane regulations," in spite of Executive Order 13770.
* Timothy Clark, White House Liaison at the Department of Health and Human Services, is the former President of the Clark Strategy Group, a lobbying firm that has represented the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Clark lobbied the federal government on behalf of pharmaceutical company Eisai Inc. as recently as 2017.
* Gary Cohn, the former President and Chief Operating Officer at Goldman Sachs, is the Chief Economic Advisor at the National Economic Council. Cohn received a $285 million payout after leaving Goldman Sachs to work for the Administration.
* Taylor Hansen, a former for-profit college lobbyist at the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (currently known as the Career Education Colleges and Universities), worked as a Special Assistant to the Secretary at the Department of Education before resigning in March 2017. In 2016, Hansen lobbied the Department of Education on issues and regulations impacting for-profit colleges.
* David Malpass, the President's nominee to serve as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, is currently the President of Encima Global, a consulting firm for Wall Street clients. Malpass served as the Chief Economist of Bear Stearns right before the financial crash and wrote in 2007 that "housing and debt markets are not that big a part of the U.S. economy, or of job creation." Malpass also served as a co-leader of the Agency Action Team on Economic issues during the Trump Transition.
On the campaign trail, President Trump promised Americans that he would "stop the gravy train for all these consultants, and all these people that are ripping off our country," and pledged to "expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants, advisors, all these different things." But instead of kicking them out, President Trump brought nearly 200 of them into the White House.
A copy of the full report is available here.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat and fearless consumer advocate who has made her life's work the fight for middle class families, was elected to the United States Senate on November 6, 2012, by the people of Massachusetts.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."