January, 10 2022, 10:30am EDT
The Public Still Needs Answers About The Fed
Four months after news of Federal Reserve Regional bank presidents Robert Kaplan and Eric Rosengren's pandemic-era trading activity first broke, the public almost certainly still does not know the full scope of the ethics crisis at the Federal Reserve. Most recently, The New York Times reported that Vice Chair Richard Clarida failed to record major financial transactions on his 2020 personal financial disclosure reports that occurred immediately prior to a February 2020 announcement that the Federal Reserve was ready to intervene in the event of an economic downturn.
WASHINGTON
Four months after news of Federal Reserve Regional bank presidents Robert Kaplan and Eric Rosengren's pandemic-era trading activity first broke, the public almost certainly still does not know the full scope of the ethics crisis at the Federal Reserve. Most recently, The New York Times reported that Vice Chair Richard Clarida failed to record major financial transactions on his 2020 personal financial disclosure reports that occurred immediately prior to a February 2020 announcement that the Federal Reserve was ready to intervene in the event of an economic downturn. Those trades, disclosed in an amended disclosure form in December 2020, render the Federal Reserve's prior claims that Clarida's trading activity had been part of a pre-planned "rebalancing" implausible.
As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell undergoes consideration for a second term, the public deserves thorough, straightforward answers to many outstanding questions about these scandals. Sadly, Federal Reserve officials' conduct has cast doubt on the institution's credibility to provide these answers. It is, therefore, critical that members of the media and of Congress seek independent answers.
Specifically, the public deserves to know:
- Are Federal Reserve officials' disclosures complete and accurate? Judging by deficiencies in Kaplan, Clarida, and Powell's disclosures, whatever system was in place to verify these reports was woefully inadequate. Have any changes been made to ensure that such gaps do not continue into the future?
- What, if any, changes to ethics enforcement have accompanied recent changes to the Federal Reserve's internal ethics regulations? Much of the behavior that came under scrutiny during the recent scandals was already prohibited under existing standards that demanded Federal Reserve officials avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Yet, it went undetected and unchecked.
- What steps have been taken to fix a regional bank president selection process that failed to detect at least two presidents' flagrant ethical violations?
The Fed has shown that it is unwilling or unable to provide answers the public can trust.
- Federal Reserve officials' characterization of Vice Chair Clarida's February 2020 trades as pre-planned "rebalancing" appear to be inaccurate. A failure to comment or apologize for misleading the public only further undermines their credibility.
- As revealed by Revolving Door Project's FOIA requests, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell appears to have been lying when he told CNBC that he had received sign off from the Office of Government Ethics for his financial holdings during the pandemic.
- The Federal Reserve has characterized an I.G. investigation into the trading scandals as "independent" when, in reality, the Federal Reserve's Inspector General is chosen by the board and can be fired by two-thirds of its members for any reason.
The Federal Reserve's ethics program must undergo thorough scrutiny from credible, independent sources. Media outlets should seek answers to the above questions and apply due scrutiny to the Federal Reserve's own characterizations of its action. Members of Congress should use their oversight powers to swiftly obtain documents and testimony from Federal Reserve officials.
The Revolving Door Project (RDP) scrutinizes executive branch appointees to ensure they use their office to serve the broad public interest, rather than to entrench corporate power or seek personal advancement.
LATEST NEWS
'An Act of Retaliation': EPA Suspends 140+ Employees for Signing 'Declaration of Dissent'
The employees were put on leave after they signed a letter saying the Trump EPA's actions "endanger public health and erode scientific progress."
Jul 04, 2025
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the Trump administration's "harmful" policies.
EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch accused the employees of "undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration's agenda." But the union that represents these employees is calling it an act of illegal "retaliation."
The "declaration of dissent", published by Stand Up for Science Monday, had been signed by 620 people as of Thursday. Addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the letter accused the administration of "recklessly undermining" the agency's mission under his watch. It accused the administration of "ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters."
"This administration's actions directly contradict EPA's own scientific assessments on human health risks, most notably regarding asbestos, mercury, and greenhouse gases," the letter said.
Since Trump retook office, the administration has eviscerated policies meant to contain pollution, slashing funding for green energy production and electric vehicles while championing increased fossil fuel drilling and consumption. It has also rolled back the enforcement of limits on cancer-causing "forever chemicals" in water.
The signatories also pointed to the Trump EPA's "undermining of public trust" by using official channels to trumpet "misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric."
They called out EPA press releases, which have referred to climate science as a "religion," EPA grants as "green slush funds," and "clean coal" as "beautiful." The letter also suggested the EPA had violated the Hatch Act by promoting political initiatives like Trump's tariffs and the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
"Make no mistake: your actions endanger public health and erode scientific progress—not only in America—but around the world," the letter said.
The employees also accused the administration of "promoting a culture of fear." They cited comments by top Trump officials, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who has said he wanted to put EPA employees "in trauma" and make them unable "to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains."
While some signatories signed their names, many others chose to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. That retaliation came Thursday, when—according to The New York Times—144 employees received an email putting them on leave for the next two weeks "pending an administrative investigation."
The decision was widely criticized as a violation of the employees' First Amendment rights.
Tim Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has previously represented EPA and other employees, said federal employees are allowed to publicly criticize the administration they work for.
"The letter of dissent did really nothing to undermine or sabotage the agenda of the administration," Whitehouse told The Washington Post. "We believe strongly that the EPA should protect the First Amendment rights of their employees."
Bill Wolfe, a former environmental policy professional with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said that the letter "was a classic form of whistleblowing that is protected by federal whistleblower laws and the 1st Amendment, as upheld by federal courts."
Justin Chen, the union representative for EPA employees under the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Times that the agency's actions were "clearly an act of retaliation" and said the union would "protect our members to the full extent of the law."
Despite the punishment, one of the signatories anonymously told The Post that they had no regrets.
"I took the risk knowing what was up," the employee wrote. "I'll say it before, and now it rings even more true … if this is the EPA they want me to work for, then I don't want to work for the EPA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Social Security Chief Applauds Budget Bill That Will Harm Social Security's Finances
"The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund."
Jul 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's handpicked Social Security chief issued a statement Thursday applauding the passage of a Republican reconciliation bill that analysts say would negatively impact the New Deal program's finances.
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano called the Republican legislation, which Trump is expected to sign on Friday, a "historic step forward for America's seniors" and a reaffirmation of the president's "promise to protect Social Security."
But experts warned in the lead-up to the bill's passage that its massive tax cuts would bring forward the date at which Social Security will no longer be able to pay out full benefits in the absence of legislative solutions.
"By raising the standard deduction for all filers, and raising it even higher for some seniors, fewer Social Security beneficiaries will pay taxes on their benefits, and those who do will pay lower rates," said Kathleen Romig and Gbenga Ajilore of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Raising the standard deduction would deliver little to no benefit to lower- and moderate-income families while reducing income into Social Security's trust funds."
The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund pic.twitter.com/aRhLfcRiIv
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) July 4, 2025
According to the latest Social Security Board of Trustees report—released ahead of the reconciliation bill's passage—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay out 100% of benefits until 2033. Thereafter, if lawmakers don't act, the fund will be able to pay out 77% of total scheduled benefits.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a conservative think tank, estimated in an analysis released last month that the Republican reconciliation package would accelerate the depletion of Social Security and Medicare's trust funds by a year. Compared to current law, the GOP measure would also result in "even deeper" cuts to Social Security benefits after the trust fund depletion date, the analysis projected.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a leading champion of Social Security Expansion in Congress, highlighted CRFB's findings in a video posted to social media a day before House Republicans secured final passage of the reconciliation bill.
"We have to act now, not just to protect Social Security but to expand the benefits," said Larson. "It needs to be protected, it needs to be enhanced—not cut and diminished."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NYT Runs Hit Piece on Mamdani Based on Tip From Proponent of 'Race Science'
Reports from multiple outlets show the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race.
Jul 04, 2025
The New York Times on Thursday published a story questioning New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's past statements about his racial background based on a tip it received from a proponent of "race science."
The Times piece in question focused on Mamdani's college application to Columbia University in which he listed both "Asian" and "Black or African American" as his race.
Although both of Mamdani's parents are of Indian descent, he was born in the African country of Uganda and lived there for the first five years of his life. Mamdani told the Times that he checked the box on the application for "Black or African American" because he considers himself an American who was born in Africa. He emphasized that he does not identify as Black and argued that he found it difficult to express the complexity of his racial background given the options on the application.
However, what is stirring controversy about the Times piece isn't so much its content but the source of its information. The Times acknowledges that the information on Mamdani was culled from a large hack of a Columbia database and that it received a copy of Mamdani's application from "an intermediary who goes by the name Crémieux on Substack and X," whom it describes as "an academic who opposes affirmative action and writes often about I.Q. and race."
A report from The Guardian's Jason Wilson published earlier this year shows that the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race. As Wilson documented, the "Crémieux" cited by the Times is a man named Jordan Lasker, whose writings regularly defend the work of "race scientists" who use I.Q. test results to argue that Black people are mentally inferior to other races.
"Crémieux runs a Substack also featuring posts on the supposed relationships between race and I.Q.," Wilson explained. "A prominently featured post there seeks to defend the argument that average national IQs vary by up to 40 points, with countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia at the high end and countries in the global south at the low end, and several African countries purportedly having average national IQs at a level that experts associate with mental impairment."
Another report from Talking Points Memo's Hunter Walker found that Lasker has regularly posted about a racial "I.Q. gap" and has even suggested that there are "genetic pathways of crime." On his X account, Lasker has mused about the differences in brain sizes between Black and white Americans and between women and men more generally.
Brandon McEuen, a historian at Wayne State University who specializes in teaching about the history of the eugenics movement, slammed the Times for not only relying on Lasker as its source for the story on Mamdani but also for granting him anonymity.
"The decision to keep Lasker anonymous is ridiculous since his name has already been published in other outlets that don't provide softballs for eugenicists," he wrote on his Bluesky account.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular