SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
More Than 75 Trump Administration Lawyers Present Revolving Door Concerns, Public Citizen Finds
Top Revolving Door Issues Involving Lawyers Twice as Severe Under Trump as Under Obama.
WASHINGTON
The revolving door between the federal government and law firms that represent big, powerful corporations is spinning like never before under the Trump administration, a new Public Citizen report finds.
The report, "Big Law, Big Conflicts," found that:
- Out of 127 senior Trump administration lawyers, 76 present revolving door concerns, meaning they previously represented companies with business before the government or worked in the same field they now oversee.
- The top revolving door issues involving lawyers are twice as severe in the Trump administration as they were in the Obama administration.
- Two law firms - Jones Day and Kirkland & Ellis - have shuffled nearly two dozen attorneys into the Trump administration.
The revolving door lawyers have gone from working for big corporations to overseeing the federal government's interactions with those same big corporations. They have moved to the Trump administration from doing legal work and lobbying for BP, Ford Motor Co., Verizon, Koch Industries and many others.
"President Donald Trump has named revolving door corporate lawyers to run virtually every division of the Justice Department and revolving door corporate lawyers have grabbed key positions throughout the Trump administration," said Public Citizen President Robert Weissman. "It should be no surprise, then, that the Trump administration is soft on corporate wrongdoers, giving polluters, scam artists, predatory lenders and other wrongdoers an easy pass. These revolving door lawyers are the enablers of the corporate takeover of our government."
While many Trump administration lawyers have recused themselves from specific cases that involve their former clients, a narrow recusal does not solve the problem, according to Public Citizen. Having spent years defending corporate clients and absorbing their world view it defies common sense that such lawyers would readily pivot from representing BP to cracking down on Shell or ExxonMobil, Public Citizen maintains.
"These officials bring to the job a deep appreciation of the views of the corporations they will now help regulate," said Alan Zibel, research director for Public Citizen's Corporate Presidency Project and author of the report. "It would be folly to expect anything else of the Trump administration."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Promising Milestone': Missouri Campaign Submits Signatures to Protect Voter-Approved Laws
"What voters are saying now is that democracy is sacred."
May 04, 2026
Organizers in Missouri on Sunday said they reached an important milestone in a campaign to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year that would stop Republican officials in the state from trying to sabotage ballot initiatives.
Respect Missouri Voters, a coalition aimed at protecting and strengthening the state's ballot initiative process, announced that it has delivered more than 367,000 signatures to the Missouri Secretary of State's office in favor of a constitutional amendment that enact two key policies to protect voter-passed laws.
First, as the Fairness Project summarized on Monday, it would "require that all future ballot measures in the state be summarized for voters in fair, clear, and easily understandable terms"; and second, it would demand "that any attempt by the Legislature to refer a voter-approved measure back to the ballot clear an 80% threshold in each chamber, a high bar designed to prevent politicians from undoing what voters have already decided."
The first part of the amendment is aimed at addressing problems created by Republican Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who has repeatedly been taken to court for writing ballot initiative summaries that advocates say are misleading or provide incomplete information about what the initiatives would do.
As the Missouri Independent reported in February, a total of five summaries written by Hoskins have been thrown out by courts since October, as "judges at every level of Missouri’s court system have stepped in to block or rewrite ballot language" drafted by the secretary of state.
The second part of the amendment, meanwhile, was written in response to Republican legislators' efforts to overturn ballot initiatives passed in 2024 that legalized abortion in Missouri and established mandatory paid sick leave.
Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, a key backer of Respect Missouri Voters, said the gathering of more than 367,000 signatures is "a promising milestone for Missouri voters and for direct democracy."
"Perhaps more than in any other state, voters in Missouri understand what is at stake,” Hall added. "It’s in Missouri that extremist politicians have worked overtime to undermine the will of their voters, whether it’s been fighting to reinstate a wildly unpopular ban on access to abortion care, gerrymandering congressional districts, or undermining the ballot measure process. What voters are saying now is that democracy is sacred."
However, it's not just Missouri where direct democracy is under attack. The Fairness Project reported last September that “extremist” legislators across the United States “escalated their efforts to dismantle the ballot measure process in 2025 by 95%.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Sues Minnesota in 'Desperate Effort to Shield' Big Oil From Climate Case
"The American people deserve a Department of Justice that fights for us, and it's a tremendous shame that Trump's DOJ would rather sell us out to Big Oil," said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
May 04, 2026
Just weeks after the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed the state's climate deception lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry to move into discovery, President Donald Trump's Department of Justice took action in federal court on Monday to block the case.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison first sued the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and its subsidiary Flint Hills Resources in state court for orchestrating and executing a "campaign of deception" regarding the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency "with disturbing success" in 2020.
The industry has been fighting to kill the case since then, and the DOJ on Monday filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against both the state and Ellison. In a related statement, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward declared that "President Trump promised to unleash American energy dominance, and Minnesota officials cannot undermine his directive by mandating that their woke climate preferences become the uniform policy of our nation."
"Minnesota's attempt to impose a national regulation on global greenhouse gas emissions not only is preempted by federal law, but also undermines affordable and reliable American energy, weakening the national and economic security of the United States," Woodward continued, summarizing the argument made in the new federal filing.
While the fossil fuel entities targeted by Minnesota welcomed the Trump DOJ's intervention, Ellison made clear that he was undeterred.
"In 2020, I sued Big Oil for lying to Minnesotans about the true causes of climate change, then sticking us with the bill for the harms it is causing," Ellison said. "Six years later, we are still waiting to go to trial because Big Oil has pulled every procedural trick in the book to delay facing the consequences of their unlawful actions."
"This frivolous and meritless lawsuit is just their latest attempt to hide from accountability, and I will move to have it dismissed immediately," he pledged. "The American people deserve a Department of Justice that fights for us, and it's a tremendous shame that Trump's DOJ would rather sell us out to Big Oil."
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports cases against polluters, also ripped the federal filing.
"This is a desperate effort to shield the architects of Big Oil's decadeslong climate deception from facing accountability," said Wiles. "Big Oil and the Trump administration are clearly terrified that Minnesota's lawsuit will reveal exactly how these defendants defrauded the public about the dangers of fossil fuels. Federal courts dismissed the Trump administration's last two attempts to stop states from taking Big Oil companies to court. This naked political intimidation tactic should meet the same fate."
Trump was backed by Big Oil during the 2024 election and campaigned on a promise to "drill, baby, drill." Since returning to office, he's aimed to serve industry interests in a range of ways, including last year's executive order directing the US attorney general to protect "American energy from state overreach."
The Justice Department noted in its Monday statement that last year, its Environment and Natural Resources Division "filed complaints against Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Vermont to stop those states' unconstitutional climate actions."
Dozens of state and local governments have filed cases similar to Ellison's in Minnesota. The US Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments related to one from Colorado that dates back to 2018: Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County.
Meanwhile, Trump and Big Oil's allies in Congress are also working to protect polluters. Last month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a bill that, if passed, would "prohibit liability against those engaged in the mining, extraction, production, refinement, transportation, distribution, marketing, manufacture, or sale of energy for damages or injunctive or other relief from the use of their products, and for other purposes."
Wiles noted at the time that "Big Oil companies have raked in massive profits at the pump while lying to the American people about the catastrophic harm of their products, and now they want to deny Americans their rightful day in court and stick taxpayers with the bill for the mess they made."
"If fossil fuel companies have done nothing wrong," he asked, "why do they need immunity?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cowardly': University of Michigan Blasted After Apologizing for Commencement Speaker's Praise of Pro-Palestine Students
“It should not be controversial to have one’s ‘heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel’s war in Gaza,’” said Professor Derek R. Peterson.
May 04, 2026
The University of Michigan is facing criticism after it apologized and said it was launching a review into a professor's commencement speech in which he praised the school's pro-Palestine student movement for highlighting the “injustice and inhumanity” of Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.
Since the early weeks of the war, which has so far resulted in the deaths of more than 72,000 Palestinians according to official estimates, Michigan's campus has been the site of continued acts of civil disobedience from student activists that have been met with harsh disciplinary action by the school and aggressive crackdowns by state police.
During a commencement address on Saturday, Professor Derek R. Peterson—a University of Michigan historian and the outgoing chair of the Faculty Senate—acknowledged these students as part of a speech that commemorated the school's long history of social activism, including the struggle led by suffragette Sarah Burger for the school to open its doors to women in the mid-1800s.
"The freedoms that we all enjoy were hard won. They weren't handed to us by a generous and far-seeing administration," Peterson said. "So the next time you sing 'Hail to the Victors,' our fight song, sing for Sarah Burger."
"Sing for the thousands of other students who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of social justice over the course of centuries," he said.
He encouraged students to “sing for Moritz Levy, the first Jewish professor at the University of Michigan,” who helped turn it into “a safe haven from the antisemitism of East Coast universities” and for “the students of the Black Action Movement, whose members demanded a curriculum that would reflect the experience and identity of black people in this country.”
Then he said to "sing for the pro-Palestinian student activists, who have over these past two years opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel's war in Gaza."
A cheer erupted from the crowd. But Peterson said the comments caused “a furor on social media” from supporters of Israel, who called it a “political rant,” a shoutout to “terrorist sympathizers,” and “grounds for termination.”
Sarah Hubbard, a Republican who is currently serving as a regent at the university, wrote on social media that while she was not in attendance, she found Peterson's remark "troubling and disappointing." She added that there should be "meaningful consequences" for his statements that should "set the tone" for the conduct of other faculty.
Leo Terrell, the chair of the Department of Justice’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which was created by President Donald Trump as part of an effort to crack down on pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses, said, “Shame on the University of Michigan,” and issued what appeared to be a threat for retaliation over social media: “We’ll see you soon. You can bet the house on it.”
Domenico Grasso, president of the University of Michigan, responded to the uproar on Saturday by issuing an apology for Peterson's remark.
He called the comments "hurtful and insensitive to many members of our community" and said, "We regret the pain this has caused on a day devoted to celebration and accomplishment."
Grasso accused Peterson of having "deviated" from the remarks he'd shared before the ceremony, and said his statements "were inappropriate and do not represent our institutional position" or "the diversity of views across our entire faculty."
He added that Peterson's remarks "were expected to be congratulatory, not a platform for personal or political expression" and said the school would "review and refine" future commencement programming to prevent speech that does not "align with the purpose of the occasion." The university has removed Peterson's commencement video from its public channels.
The University of Michigan has had sitting members of Congress and other political leaders serve as commencement speakers for decades.
President Lyndon B. Johnson famously used the ceremony in 1964 to introduce Americans to his "Great Society" agenda, which he said would demand an "end to poverty and racial injustice." President George HW Bush used the forum to tout his foreign policy accomplishments and rail against "political correctness" on university campuses.
Just last year, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) served as commencement speaker and warned that public discourse was being “defined by fear” under the second Trump administration in part because of activists being punished for their political beliefs and speech.
In a statement to CBS News Detroit, Peterson responded to the backlash and the university's response.
"It should not be controversial to have one's 'heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel's war in Gaza', which is what I credited activists with doing," he said. "Having an open heart to other people's suffering is a fundamental human virtue. It is a quality that I hope we teach our students, whatever their political posture might be."
Peterson said he was "mystified" by the response to his speech. "I have—like many of us here in Michigan—been convicted by the evidence of human suffering in Gaza; and I credit my awareness of that to pro-Palestinian activists... On a day meant to honor students for their accomplishments, I thought it important that we would honor the student activists who have, over the course of time, pushed the institution toward justice."
"The idea that graduations should be apolitical is ridiculous," Peterson added. "Michigan is not a finishing school for polite young men and women. Our students are not wilting flowers. They have just finished their degrees at the foremost public university in the country. They can handle controversy."
Just as Peterson's comments sparked a backlash, the university's reaction to his speech has been met with familiar criticism that it is silencing political speech at the behest of Israel's supporters.
"The entire 'speak-no-criticism-of-Israel' industry is erupting in outrage and demanding retribution for a history professor’s speech at the UMich graduation," said Lara Friedman, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who added that those seeking to discipline Peterson were effectively making a "demand for a complete Israel-exception to free speech."
Israel has been condemned for human rights violations in Gaza by United Nations experts and numerous nations around the world, while several human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Israeli organization B'Tselem, among many others, have used the term "genocide" to describe its campaign of destruction and displacement in Gaza.
Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, noted Grasso's claim that Peterson's statements ran counter to the school's "institutional position."
He said sardonically that it was “pretty neat to see a University of Michigan president say the school is opposed to human rights.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular