

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.

Three states in particular - Iowa, North Dakota and Maryland - have developed revolving door restrictions that effectively prevent former state officials from conducting any lobbying activity for a period of time after leaving public office - something the federal government should implement, a new Public Citizen analysis finds.
As "laboratories of democracy," the experiences among the states in trying to slow the revolving door between government and industry offer lessons for the federal government.
The revolving door is a practice in which former public officials cash in on their government service by becoming lobbyists or strategic consultants after they leave government, then selling their inside connections and knowledge to corporate interests. This revolving door muddies whether public officials are representing the public interest or corporate interests.
Several states have determined that a one-year ban on lobbying by former public officials is far too short. At the very least, the "cooling-off' period should be a full two-year legislative cycle so that turnover fades the former officials' inside connections. Florida imposes a six-year cooling-off period.
More importantly, states like Iowa, North Dakota and Maryland prohibit former officials from conducting any "lobbying activity" for compensation during the cooling-off period, not just banning "lobbying contacts" during that period as is done at the federal level.
The worst states - Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Wyoming - have no restrictions, the analysis found.
See how other states manage the revolving door here.
The government-to-lobbyist revolving door is potentially corrupting. Public officials may be influenced by the implicit or explicit promise of a lucrative job in the private sector with an entity seeking a government contract or to shape public policy. In addition, public officials-turned-lobbyists have access to lawmakers that is not available to others - access they sell for a hefty price.
Federal restrictions on the revolving door are woefully inadequate. While former U.S. senators are subject to a two-year cooling-off period, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and most executive branch officials are subject only to a one-year ban.
Worse yet, all former federal public officials are prohibited only from making lobbying contacts during the cooling-off period. They can immediately join a lobbying firm and organize and direct a lobbying campaign; they just can't pick up the telephone to contact their former colleagues.
A recent Public Citizen report that found 59% (26 of 44) of former members of the 115th Congress (2017-2019) who have found employment outside politics have gone through the revolving door and are conducting lobbying activities.
As several states have shown, an effective revolving door law should be more comprehensive than the narrow ban on lobbying contacts now prohibited under the cooling-off period at the federal level, and the cooling-off period needs to be longer than a single year.
Following the example of the "best" states, federal revolving door laws should be strengthened by:
* Extending all cooling-off periods to a minimum of two years or longer to allow the inside connections to sitting government officials to fade;
* Banning "lobbying activity" such as of conducting research, preparation, planning and supervision of a lobbying campaign as well as banning "lobbying contacts" during the cooling-off period; and
* Applying the ban on lobbying by former elected officials and very senior staff across the board to prohibit lobbying all agencies and both the legislative and executive branches of government during the cooling-off period.
"Public officials are supposed to serve the public interest of the American people," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. "Increasingly, however, these public officials are leaving government service to work on behalf of private interests, as well as their own, as lobbyists or strategic consultants on behalf of lobbying campaigns for special interests. If we want government to work for us, we need to slow the revolving door."
Read the full report here.
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) 588-1000"The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,” the lawmakers wrote.
A group of 31 Democratic senators has launched an investigation into a new Trump administration policy that they say allows the Environmental Protection Agency to "disregard" the health impacts of air pollution when passing regulations.
Plans for the policy were first reported on last month by the New York Times, which revealed that the EPA was planning to stop tallying the financial value of health benefits caused by limiting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone when regulating polluting industries and instead focus exclusively on the costs these regulations pose to industry.
On December 11, the Times reported that the policy change was being justified based on the claim that the exact benefits of curbing these emissions were “uncertain."
"Historically, the EPA’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone," said an email written by an EPA supervisor to his employees on December 11. “To rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”
The group of senators, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), rebuked this idea in a letter sent Thursday to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
"EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are 'uncertain,' what is certain is that they are not zero," they said. "It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health—including in saved lives."
"It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed," they continued. "The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President [Donald] Trump’s largest donors."
Research published in 2023 in the journal Science found that between 1999 and 2020, PM2.5 pollution from coal-fired power plants killed roughly 460,000 people in the United States, making it more than twice as deadly as other kinds of fine particulate emissions.
While this is a staggering loss of life, the senators pointed out that the EPA has also been able to put a dollar value on the loss by noting quantifiable results of increased illness and death—heightened healthcare costs, missed school days, and lost labor productivity, among others.
Pointing to EPA estimates from 2024, they said that by disregarding human health effects, the agency risks costing Americans “between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature deaths in the year 2032."
Comparatively, they said, “the total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, [would] be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value."
They said the plan ran counter to the Clean Air Act's directive to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare,” and to statements made by Zeldin during his confirmation hearing, where he said "the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.”
The senators requested all documents related to the decision, including any information about cost-benefit modeling and communications with industry representatives.
"That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist," the senators said. "It just means that [EPA] will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests."
"An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down," wrote the New Republic's editorial director.
Democratic voters overwhelmingly want a leader who will fight the superrich and corporate America, and they believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person to do it, according to a poll released this week.
While Democrats are often portrayed as squabbling and directionless, the poll conducted last month by the New Republic with Embold Research demonstrated a remarkable unity among the more than 2,400 Democratic voters it surveyed.
This was true with respect to policy: More than 9 in 10 want to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, while more than three-quarters want to break up tech monopolies and believe the government should conduct stronger oversight of business.
But it was also reflected in sentiments that a more confrontational governing philosophy should prevail and general agreement that the party in its current form is not doing enough to take on its enemies.
Three-quarters said they wanted Democrats to "be more aggressive in calling out Republicans," while nearly 7 in 10 said it was appropriate to describe their party as "weak."
This appears to have translated to support for a more muscular view of government. Where the label once helped to sink Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) two runs for president, nearly three-quarters of Democrats now say they are either unconcerned with the label of "socialist" or view it as an asset.
Meanwhile, 46% said they want to see a "progressive" at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028, higher than the number who said they wanted a "liberal" or a "moderate."
It's an environment that appears to be fertile ground for Ocasio-Cortez, who pitched her vision for a "working-class-centered politics" at this week's Munich summit in what many suspected was a soft-launch of her presidential candidacy in 2028.
With 85% favorability, Bronx congresswoman had the highest approval rating of any Democratic figure in the country among the voters surveyed.
It's a higher mark than either of the figures who head-to-head polls have shown to be presumptive favorites for the nomination: Former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Early polls show AOC lagging considerably behind these top two. However, there are signs in the New Republic's poll that may give her supporters cause for hope.
While Harris is also well-liked, 66% of Democrats surveyed said they believe she's "had her shot" at the presidency and should not run again after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024.
Newsom does not have a similar electoral history holding him back and is riding high from the passage of Proposition 50, which will allow Democrats to add potentially five more US House seats this November.
But his policy approach may prove an ill fit at a time when Democrats overwhelmingly say their party is "too timid" about taxing the rich and corporations and taking on tech oligarchs.
As labor unions in California have pushed for a popular proposal to introduce a billionaire's tax, Newsom has made himself the chiseled face of the resistance to this idea, joining with right-wing Silicon Valley barons in an aggressive campaign to kill it.
While polls can tell us little two years out about what voters will do in 2028, New Republic editorial director Emily Cooke said her magazine's survey shows an unmistakable pattern.
"It’s impossible to come away from these results without concluding that economic populism is a winning message for loyal Democrats," she wrote. "This was true across those who identify as liberals, moderates, or progressives: An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down."
In some cases, the administration has kept immigrants locked up even after a judge has ordered their release, according to an investigation by Reuters.
Judges across the country have ruled more than 4,400 times since the start of October that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has illegally detained immigrants, according to a Reuters investigation published Saturday.
As President Donald Trump carries out his unprecedented "mass deportation" crusade, the number of people in ICE custody ballooned to 68,000 this month, up 75% from when he took office.
Midway through 2025, the administration had begun pushing for a daily quota of 3,000 arrests per day, with the goal of reaching 1 million per year. This has led to the targeting of mostly people with no criminal records rather than the "worst of the worst," as the administration often claims.
Reuters' reporting suggests chasing this number has also resulted in a staggering number of arrests that judges have later found to be illegal.
Since the beginning of Trump's term, immigrants have filed more than 20,200 habeas corpus petitions, claiming they were held indefinitely without trial in violation of the Constitution.
In at least 4,421 cases, more than 400 federal judges have ruled that their detentions were illegal.
Last month, more than 6,000 habeas petitions were filed. Prior to the second Trump administration, no other month dating back to 2010 had seen even 500.

In part due to the sheer volume of legal challenges, the Trump administration has often failed to comply with court rulings, leaving people locked up even after judges ordered them to be released.
Reuters' new report is the most comprehensive examination to date of the administration's routine violation of the law with respect to immigration enforcement. But the extent to which federal immigration agencies have violated the law under Trump is hardly new information.
In a ruling last month, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—provided a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE had violated just that month while deployed as part of Trump's Operation Metro Surge.
The report of ICE's systemic violation of the law comes as the agency faces heightened scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with leaders of the agency called to testify and Democrats attempting to hold up funding in order to force reforms to ICE's conduct, which resulted in a partial shutdown beginning Saturday.
Following the release of Reuters' report, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) directed a pointed question over social media to Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.
"Why do your out-of-control agents keep violating federal law?" he said. "I look forward to seeing you testify under oath at the House Judiciary Committee in early March."