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
bribery
Capitalizing on Trump Corruption, Scammers Trick Davos Elites With Phony Pay-for-Access Scheme
"We encourage billionaires to be vigilant and only utilize the White House’s official pay-for-access operation," quipped the office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Jan 20, 2026
Scammers have succeeded in tricking global elites at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland into paying top dollar for false promises of access to US President Donald Trump, whose open corruption has astonished experts and watchdog organizations.
USA House, the main event venue for the US in Davos, posted a warning on Tuesday about scammers selling supposed "VIP access" to the site, which is scheduled to feature is scheduled to feature a speech by the president, as well as panels with CEOs and Trump administration officials.
"It has been brought to our attention that again this year external parties are selling 'VIP access to USA House' and other Stromback Global venues in Davos," the notice read. "USA House and Stromback Global do not work with any external resellers and we will not give access to people who purchased such packages."
The notice concluded by expressing "sympathies to those who fell victim to these scams."
The social media team of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom was quick to pounce on news of the scam, and wrote up their own mocking warning for Davos elites trying to get one-on-one time with the president.
"ALERT: Scammers are selling access to Trump at Davos," they wrote. "We encourage billionaires to be vigilant and only utilize the White House’s official pay-for-access operation."
Concerns about pay-for-access schemes have been prevalent throughout Trump's second term.
Shortly before returning to the White House last year, Trump launched his own official cryptocurrency, which raised immediate alarms about investors using it as a mechanism to bribe him.
In May, Trump hosted an exclusive dinner at one of his golf clubs in Virginia for the largest investors in his cryptocurrency, who spent a combined $148 million on Trump meme coins, according to CNBC.
Trump also drew allegations of corruption in October when he pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the founder of cryptocurrency exchange Binance who pleaded guilty to money-laundering charges in 2023, after he had helped boost the value of Trump's meme coin months earlier.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump FCC's Approval of Paramount-Skydance Merger 'Reeks of the Worst Form of Corruption'
"The stench of this transaction will linger over the commission for years," said a pair of Democratic senators.
Jul 25, 2025
The Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission on Thursday gave formal approval to the $8 billion merger of CBS owner Paramount and the media firm Skydance, which won over the agency's Trump-appointed chairman with pledges to review CBS' content and appoint an ombudsman to evaluate claims of bias.
The FCC's two Republicans, Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty, supported approval of the merger, a decision that comes weeks after Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle President Donald Trump's lawsuit over the organization's handling of a pre-election "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris.
Anna Gomez, the FCC's lone Democratic-appointed commissioner, said Thursday that "after months of cowardly capitulation to this administration, Paramount finally got what it wanted."
"Despite this regrettable outcome, this administration is not done with its assault on the First Amendment," said Gomez, who opposed the merger. "In fact, it may only be beginning. The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage. It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country."
"The partisan vote is a dark day for independent journalism and a stain on the storied history of the Federal Communications Commission."
Democratic lawmakers responded with similar disgust and alarm. In a joint statement, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said the merger approval "reeks of the worst form of corruption."
"While we're glad that the commission took a vote on the deal, as we have repeatedly called for, the partisan vote is a dark day for independent journalism and a stain on the storied history of the Federal Communications Commission," the senators added. "The stench of this transaction will linger over the commission for years."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that "this merger must be investigated for any criminal behavior."
"It's an open question whether the Trump administration’s approval of this merger was the result of a bribe," said Warren.
BREAKING NEWS: Trump's government just approved Paramount's merger with Skydance.
Sure looks like they paid Donald Trump $36 MILLION for this merger.
Bribery is illegal no matter who is president. pic.twitter.com/DE7LPRjT6X
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 24, 2025
Under the publicly available terms of the Paramount settlement, the company agreed to put $16 million toward Trump's future presidential library. But Trump has claimed that the deal is actually worth more than twice the publicly reported figure, asserting that Skydance agreed to spend $20 million on "advertising, PSAs, or similar programming."
Earlier this week, Warren and two other senators demanded answers from Skydance CEO David Ellison about the purported side deal, which the lawmakers described as a "potential secret Trump payoff."
Conor Gaffney and Janine Lopez, attorneys at the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, wrote Thursday that "no doubt the boards of Paramount and Skydance are hoping this saga ends today—now that they've appeased the FCC and cleared merger review."
"But as we've seen time and again, businesses that capitulate to the Trump administration find themselves captured rather than in the clear—with the president quick to change his mind and come back for more," they wrote. "The costs of capitulation are higher than they might initially seem, and the business calculation that Paramount and many others have made may be wrong. The price of protection only goes up, and the mob keeps coming around."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Writers Union Calls for Bribery Probe of Paramount After Colbert Cancellation
The Writers Guild of America voiced concern that Paramount is "sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval."
Jul 20, 2025
The Writers Guild of America is calling on New York's attorney general to launch a bribery investigation into Paramount Global following the cancellation of "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert."
WGA, some of whose members worked on the CBS show, said in a statement that while "cancellations are part of the business," a "corporation terminating a show in bad faith due to explicit or implicit political pressure is dangerous and unacceptable in a democratic society."
"Paramount's decision comes against a backdrop of relentless attacks on a free press by President Trump, through lawsuits against CBS and ABC, threatened litigation of media organizations with critical coverage, and the unconscionable defunding of PBS and NPR," the union said.
WGA noted that the show's cancellation—which CBS insisted was a "purely financial" decision—came after Colbert criticized Paramount's $16 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump.
In a July 15 segment, aired 48 hours prior to his show's cancellation, Colbert called the settlement with Trump a "big, fat bribe" aimed at greasing federal approval of Paramount's pending merger with the entertainment company Skydance. Paramount owns CBS, and Paramount's controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, has reportedly been monitoring the network's coverage of the president.
The day of the Colbert segment, the CEO of Skydance met with Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr to discuss the pending merger.
In its statement, WGA urged New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate "potential wrongdoing" at Paramount, which is headquartered in New York City.
"Given Paramount's recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that 'The Late Show' cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval," the union said. "We call on our elected leaders to hold those responsible to account, to demand answers about why this beloved program was canceled, and to assure the public that Colbert and his writers were not censored due to their views or the whims of the president."
Ahead of the official settlement announcement, California's Senate launched an investigation into whether Paramount "violated state laws against bribery and unfair competition" by offering Trump $15 million to end the legal fight, Semafor reported.
After news of the settlement deal broke earlier this month, Democratic U.S. senators called for a federal investigation.
"With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Colbert's Termination Is a Win for Trump—and the Corporate Assault on Dissent
The conglomerates that dominate our media and our society have one and only one value: profit-maximization.
Jul 19, 2025
When media critic A.J. Liebling wrote in The New Yorker 65 years ago that “freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” he might have glimpsed a media system dangerously dominated by a small number of companies.
But it’s unlikely he could have foreseen a president as authoritarian as Donald Trump, and media conglomerates eager to capitulate to him.
Thanks to the Paramount conglomerate and its greed-fueled boss, Shari Redstone, the “Late Show with Stephen Colbert” will vanish next year. After the Trump administration responds by approving the Paramount merger with Skydance, Redstone will be roughly $2 billion richer than she is today, and Paramount/CBS may become even more Trump-friendly.
Months ago, when I predicted the demise of Colbert or “The Daily Show,” another Paramount property, it sounded paranoid. But now it’s reality. (“The Daily Show” may be next on the chopping block.)
In recent months, we’ve seen one media conglomerate after another offer what amounted to multimillion-dollar bribes to Trump by settling frivolous Trump lawsuits that these companies could not possibly have lost in court.
Last December, the Disney Company paid Trump a thinly-disguised bribe—$15 million to Trump’s future presidential library—to settle a harassment lawsuit against ABC News over a segment mentioning E. Jean Carroll’s victorious case against Trump.
In January, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta made a bribe-like payment of $25 million to Trump to settle a ridiculous lawsuit after the company followed its own well-understood guidelines and suspended Trump from Facebook and Instagram for inciting violence on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol. (Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in November and Meta donated $1 million to Trump’s 2025 inaugural fund.)
But there was a snag in settlement negotiations between Paramount and Trump over an even more laughable suit he could never win in court. This one concerned how CBS “60 Minutes” had edited an interview with Kamala Harris, a suit that Paramount had called “meritless.”
During negotiations, respected executive producer of “60 Minutes” Bill Owens resigned over Paramount meddling, soon followed by the resignation of the CEO of CBS News. But that wasn’t enough to get the suit settled, and it was far from sufficient to get the Trump administration to approve the Paramount merger. That’s when I worried that Colbert or Jon Stewart would have to be sacrificed to placate the authoritarian-in-chief and get Paramount and Redstone the riches that a merger would bring.
Three weeks ago, Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle the suit, amid rumors of side deals that content would shift at the new Paramount. And now Colbert, one of Trump’s most effective critics, is being shown the door. On Monday’s show, Colbert carried on at length, making fun of what he called Paramount’s “big, fat bribe.”
Colbert is funny.
What’s not funny is that our country’s democratic experiment is on the verge of collapse—and it has less to do with Trump than with the capitulation of corporate liberals and corporate centrist institutions to Trump.
Big universities have capitulated. Big law firms have capitulated. Big media companies have capitulated.
The lesson to be learned from today’s political reality is that big corporate institutions don’t care about democracy or free speech. They will bend the political system toward their own economic benefit—and be complicit with authoritarianism if it keeps getting them wealthier.
The conglomerates that dominate our media and our society have one and only one value: profit-maximization. This was pretty much admitted by Shari Redstone’s late father, Sumner, who built the Viacom (now Paramount) media conglomerate. Sumner Redstone was considered a liberal, a son of Massachusetts who’d been friendly with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate for president. But Redstone famously endorsed George W. Bush for president in 2004.
As Redstone explained: “I vote for what’s good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom... I don’t want to denigrate Kerry, but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on.”
I know I’m not the only progressive who has survived the Trump years with my sanity intact thanks in large part to TV comedians employed by media conglomerates: Colbert (Paramount), Jon Stewart and team (Paramount), Jimmy Kimmel (Disney), Seth Meyers (Comcast); and the best investigative journalist on mainstream TV, John Oliver (Warner Discovery).
There’s a quote usually attributed—perhaps inaccurately—to George Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
I’ve offered a twist on this quote for the Trump era: “In a time of political craziness, keeping one’s sanity is a revolutionary act.”
It’s hard to stay sane without laughter, and the comedians listed above are often uplifting. But just as we’ve moved to independent news outlets out of distrust for corporate news, we’re likely to be looking outside the media conglomerates for our comedy when many a truth is truly spoken in jest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Spineless Capitulation to Extortion': Paramount Caves to Trump With $16 Million Settlement
Critics characterized the payment as a bribe in exchange for federal approval of Paramount's pending merger with Skydance.
Jul 02, 2025
The parent company of CBS News, Paramount Global, announced Tuesday that it has agreed to pay U.S. President Donald Trump $16 million to settle what legal experts called an entirely meritless lawsuit over the media organization's handling of a pre-election "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris.
Under the reported terms of the settlement, the money will go toward Trump's legal fees and his future presidential library. Paramount said the settlement deal does not include a formal apology, but the company agreed to release written transcripts of future "60 Minutes" interviews with presidential candidates.
Critics responded with outrage to news of the settlement, which one observer characterized as "spineless capitulation to extortion." Some posted screenshots to social media showing they canceled their Paramount+ subscriptions in response.
As Paramount engaged in talks with Trump's legal team over the lawsuit in recent weeks, press freedom advocates and members of Congress implored the organization not to settle, warning that caving to the president would reward and embolden his attacks on media outlets he views as his political enemies.
"If you settle cases, you're going to send a message to your news team to not push the envelope for fear of people being sued," media attorney Edward Klaris told The Washington Post, "and you're going to court more cases against your company because they might think that if they sue you they're going to collect."
"A line is being drawn between the owners of American news media who are willing to stand up for press freedom and those who capitulate to the demands of the president."
Paramount's controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, supported a settlement with Trump in the hope that it would "clear the way" for federal approval of the company's merger with the entertainment company Skydance, according to The Wall Street Journal, which cited sources familiar with the internal discussions. Bloomberg reported that Redstone could reap $180 million in "severance and other benefits on top of hundreds of millions from the sale of her stock" if the merger goes through.
In May, the Freedom of the Press Foundation—a Paramount shareholder—cautioned that a settlement with Trump "could amount to a bribe" to the Trump administration in exchange for approval of the merger. The advocacy group said it would sue Paramount if the company caved to the president, arguing that "a settlement of Trump's meritless lawsuit may well be a thinly veiled effort to launder bribes through the court system."
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) similarly warned Paramount that a settlement with Trump could run afoul of federal anti-bribery laws.
"Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the administration in order to secure merger approval," the senators wrote in a May 19 letter to Redstone.
Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA, said in a statement Wednesday that the settlement was "a shameful decision by Paramount."
"Shari Redstone and Paramount's board should have stood by CBS journalists and the integrity of press freedom," said Weimers. "Instead, they chose to reward Donald Trump for his petty legal assault against both. A line is being drawn between the owners of American news media who are willing to stand up for press freedom and those who capitulate to the demands of the president."
"Paramount's leaders chose to be on the wrong side of that dividing line, but they'd be mistaken to believe appeasing Trump today will stop his attacks in the future," Weimers added. "News media owners are much better off standing strong than acquiescing."
This story has been updated to include a statement from Reporters Without Borders USA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Could Amount to a Bribe': Group Threatens Lawsuit If Paramount Caves to Trump
"Corporations that own news outlets should not be in the business of settling baseless lawsuits that clearly violate the First Amendment and put other media outlets at risk."
May 24, 2025
If Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS News, settles a $20 billion lawsuit brought by U.S. President Donald Trump, it could face another lawsuit from a leading press freedom organization.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), a Paramount shareholder, notified company executives in a letter on Friday that a settlement with Trump "could amount to a bribe" to the president and his administration "for their approving and not impeding" a merger of Paramount and the entertainment company Skydance.
FPF addressed its letter to Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder. In recent weeks, Redstone—who stands to profit from federal approval of the merger—has come under fire for advocating a settlement with Trump and keeping tabs on CBS coverage of the president, who claims the outlet deceptively edited an interview it conducted with Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election.
Paramount's leadership has reportedly discussed settling the Trump lawsuit for up to $20 million. Redstone has privately pushed for a settlement in hopes that it will "clear the way for the merger's approval," The Wall Street Journal reported last month.
"I am writing to demand that you institute an immediate litigation hold, as FPF plans to file a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of Paramount in the event of a settlement by Paramount," wrote Seth Stern, FPF's director of advocacy. "We expect that other long-term shareholders will join the suit."
FPF notes that a derivative lawsuit "is a procedure that allows shareholders of a company to recover damages incurred due to impropriety by executives and directors."
"Any damages award would go to Paramount, not FPF," the group added.
“I’m proud that @freedom.press is doing what CBS’s corporate owners won’t — standing up for press freedom and against authoritarian shakedowns. People who aren’t willing to defend the First Amendment should not be in the news business,” says @johncusack.bsky.social freedom.press/issues/we-pl...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) May 23, 2025 at 7:20 PM
The lawsuit warning comes after a trio of U.S. senators cautioned that Paramount "may be engaging in potentially illegal conduct" by pursuing a settlement with Trump in exchange for approval of the Skydance merger.
"Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the administration in order to secure merger approval," wrote Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a May 19 letter to Redstone.
Internally, Paramount executives have acknowledged that settling the Trump suit "could expose directors and officers to liability in potential future shareholder litigation or criminal charges for bribing a public official," the Journal reported in February.
In a statement on Friday, Stern said that "corporations that own news outlets should not be in the business of settling baseless lawsuits that clearly violate the First Amendment and put other media outlets at risk."
"A settlement of Trump's meritless lawsuit may well be a thinly veiled effort to launder bribes through the court system," said Stern. "Not only would it tank CBS's reputation but, as three U.S. senators recently explained, it could put Paramount executives at risk of breaking the law."
"Our mission as a press freedom organization is to defend the rights of journalists and the public, not the financial interests of corporate higher-ups who turn their backs on them. When you run a news organization, you have the responsibility to protect First Amendment rights, not abandon them to line your own pockets," Stern added. "We hope Paramount will reconsider the dangerous path it appears to be contemplating but, if not, we are prepared to pursue our rights as shareholders. And we hope other Paramount shareholders will join us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wisconsin AG Sues to Block Musk's Multimillion Dollar Election Eve Voter Bribe
Attorney General Josh Kaul accused the world's richest person and top Trump adviser of "a blatant attempt to violate" Wisconsin's election bribery law.
Mar 28, 2025
Democratic Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to stop Elon Musk—the world's richest person and a senior adviser to President Donald Trump—from handing out $1 million checks to voters this weekend in an apparent blatant violation of bribery law meant to swing next Tuesday's crucial state Supreme Court election.
"Wisconsin law forbids anyone from offering or promising to give anything of value to an elector in order to induce the elector to go to the polls, vote or refrain from voting, or vote for a particular person," the lawsuit notes. "Musk's announcement of his intention to pay $1 million to two Wisconsin electors who attend his event on Sunday night, specifically conditioned on their having voted in the upcoming April 3, 2025, Wisconsin Supreme Court election, is a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11. This must not happen."
On Thursday, Musk announced on his X social media site that he will "give a talk" at an undisclosed location in Wisconsin, and that "entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges."
"I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to two people to be spokesmen for the petition," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO and de facto head of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency wrote.
As Common Dreams reported earlier last week, Musk's super political action committee, America PAC, is offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition stating that they reject "the actions of activist judges who impose their own views" and demand "a judiciary that respects its role—interpreting, not legislating."
The cash awards—which critics have decried as bribery—are part of a multimillion dollar effort by Musk and affiliated super PACs to boost Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, the Trump-backed, right-wing state Supreme Court candidate locked in a tight race with Dane County Judge Susan Crawford.
Left-leaning justices are clinging to a 4-3 advantage on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Crawford and Schimel are vying to fill the seat now occupied by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal who is not running for another 10-year term. Control of the state's highest court will likely impact a wide range of issues, from abortion to labor rights to voter suppression.
Musk has openly admitted why he's spending millions of dollars on the race: It "will decide how congressional districts are drawn." That's what he said while hosting Schimel and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for a discussion on X last weekend.
"In my opinion that's the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin," Musk argued. "It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place."
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman issued a statement Friday calling Musk's planned cash giveaway a "last-minute desperate distraction."
"Wisconsinites don't want a billionaire like Musk telling them who to vote for," Honeyman added, "and on Tuesday, voters should reject Musk's lackey Brad Schimel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Instead of Pausing a Ban on Bribing Foreign Officials, Trump Should Strengthen It
Not only should the FCPA be vigorously enforced to stop bribery of foreign officials by U.S. companies, but the law must also be strengthened to combat the flip side of the corruption coin—foreign bribes accepted by American officials.
Feb 25, 2025
On February 10, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order that directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pause the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA was the first law in modern history to ban a country’s own citizens and companies from bribing foreign officials.
Citing the law as one of the “excessive barriers to American commerce abroad,” President Trump has instructed the attorney general to—at her discretion—“cease the initiation of any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions.” The executive order further requires the DOJ to provide remedial measures for those who have faced "inappropriate" penalties as a result of past FCPA investigations and guilty verdicts.
This move by the Trump administration to pause enforcement of the foreign bribery law now and allow it to be put on the shelf later risks a revival of the pre-1970s period, when bribery was a routine practice among major U.S. arms contractors.
If President Trump is serious about his campaign pledge to “stop the war profiteering and to always put America first,” it is the worst possible time to shelve the FCPA, given that bribery by U.S. companies is alive and well.
In the post-Watergate reform period in Congress, in late 1975 and early 1976, Idaho Sen. Frank Church’s Subcommittee on the Conduct of Multinational Corporations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee exposed widespread foreign bribery on the part of U.S. oil and aerospace firms, with the starring role played by Lockheed Martin, which bribed officials in Japan, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Mexico, and Colombia in pursuit of contracts for its civilian and military aircraft.
The revelations caused political turmoil in the recipient countries, led to the resignation of Lockheed’s two top executives, and prompted Congress to pass the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.
The repercussions were most severe in Japan, where Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka was arrested and convicted of receiving bribes in the scandal—the first time a sitting Japanese prime minister had been arrested, in what one analyst called “Japan’s biggest scandal of the postwar era.”
Sen. Church made it clear that in his mind, the problem went far beyond the question of corruption: “It is no longer sufficient to simply sigh and say that is the way business is done. It is time to treat the issue for what it is: a serious foreign policy problem.”
Among the issues he cited were potential destabilization of democratic allies and closer ties with reckless, dictatorial regimes driven by financial motivations rather than careful consideration of U.S. security interests.
As noted above, President Trump’s primary reason for freezing enforcement of the anti-bribery law is that he believes it has been used unfairly, to the detriment of U.S. companies and U.S. security. This argument does not hold up to scrutiny.
First of all, there is no evidence that outlawing bribery has hurt the U.S. arms industry. The United States has been the world’s largest arms supplier by a large margin for 25 of the past 26 years, and major U.S. arms offers reached near record levels of $145 billion last year.
The real issue is how to stop dangerous, counterproductive arms transfers, not how to make it easier to cash in on sales that too often undermine U.S. interests.
A 2022 Quincy Institute study found that U.S.-supplied weapons were present in two-thirds of the world’s active conflicts, and that at least 31 clients of the U.S. arms industry were undemocratic regimes. Fueling conflicts and supporting reckless authoritarian regimes are destabilizing to regions of importance to U.S. security. They also risk drawing the United States into a direct, boots-on-the-ground conflict.
If President Trump is serious about his campaign pledge to “stop the war profiteering and to always put America first,” it is the worst possible time to shelve the FCPA, given that bribery by U.S. companies is alive and well. Just last October, RTX (formerly known as Raytheon) was forced to pay over $950 million in fines after it was found to have engaged in multiple schemes to defraud the Department of Defense and violate the FCPA and the Arms Export Control Act by paying bribes to Qatari officials in pursuit of major military contracts with that nation.
Not only should the FCPA be vigorously enforced to stop bribery of foreign officials by U.S. companies, but the law must also be strengthened to combat the flip side of the corruption coin—foreign bribes accepted by American officials. The recent sentencing of former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) to 11 years in prison after being found guilty of bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, and acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Egypt and Qatar underscores the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms.
Menendez’s guilty verdict as well as Rep. Henry Cuellar’s (D-Texas) indictment on charges that included unlawful foreign influence and bribery reveal how those who wield influence over American foreign policy can be paid off in exchange for exerting unwarranted influence on behalf of a foreign government.
The debate over bribery may be obscuring a larger truth: U.S. arms sales policy is in desperate need of an overhaul. The governing legislation—the Arms Export Control Act—was passed in 1976, when the world was a very different place than it is today.
The law gives Congress the authority to block a major arms sale by passing a joint resolution of disapproval in both houses. But given that they would be opposing a sale already approved by the Executive Branch, they would likely need a veto-proof majority. This standard is too hard to meet. For example, when Congress voted against a sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia in the midst of that nation’s brutal intervention in Yemen, the measure was vetoed by President Trump
A major change that could have a significant impact on U.S. arms sales decisions is legislation that would “flip the script” by requiring an affirmative vote of Congress before major sales to key countries are allowed to go forward. This would strengthen Congress’ hand and make it easier to stop reckless sales that might fuel conflict or enable human rights abuses.
Instead of lifting restrictions on bribery to grease the wheels for additional foreign arms sales by U.S. weapons makers, Congress and the Trump administration should be crafting a policy designed to make sure overseas arms sales are governed by U.S. national interests, not special interests that profit from selling ever more weaponry to any and all customers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Justice Department Moves to Complete 'Openly Corrupt Legal Bailout' of Eric Adams
"The Adams case confirms that as long as Bondi is in office, the rule of law will be subordinate to Trump's personal motivations."
Feb 15, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's Justice Department formally moved Friday night to drop charges against Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams after at least seven federal prosecutors resigned, refusing to carry out what's been described as an "openly corrupt legal bailout."
In a new filing signed by veteran prosecutor Edward Sullivan, the Department of Justice requested "dismissal without prejudice of the charges" against Adams, who was indicted last year on multiple counts of wire fraud, bribery, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations after an investigation that began in 2021. "Without prejudice" means the charges could be brought again.
It's an open question how Dale Ho, the judge overseeing the case, will respond. Some experts say he could reject the DOJ's request on the grounds that it is politically motivated.
The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, has said openly that its push to dismiss the charges against Adams has nothing to do with the "strength of the evidence" against Adams.
Rather, the decision is a remarkably transparent effort to ensure the New York City mayor's full cooperation with Trump's anti-immigrant agenda.
Sullivan reportedly signed the new Justice Department filing under significant duress. According to Reuters, Bove "told the department's career public integrity prosecutors in a meeting on Friday that they had an hour to decide among themselves who would file the motion," signaling they would all be fired if no one capitulated.
"The volunteer was Ed Sullivan, a veteran career prosecutor, who agreed to alleviate pressure on his colleagues in the department's public integrity section," Reuters reported, citing two unnamed sources. "Sullivan's decision came after the attorneys in the meeting contemplated resigning en masse, rather than filing the motion to dismiss... There are approximately 30 attorneys in the Public Integrity Section."
"I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me."
Brewing opposition inside the Justice Department exploded into public view this week as prosecutors opted to step down rather than carry out the DOJ leadership's orders to seek dismissal of the Adams charges.
Danielle Sassoon, former interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who announced her departure earlier this week, wrote in a letter to Bondi on February 12 that she was "baffled by the rushed and superficial process" by which the decision to drop the charges against Adams was reached, "in seeming collaboration with Adams' counsel and without my direct input."
In a footnote of the letter, Sassoon described a meeting she and members of her team attended with Bove—who previously served as a member of Trump's personal legal team—and Adams' counsel.
"Adams' attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed," Sassoon wrote. "Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion."
Shortly before the Justice Department submitted its new filing on Friday, Hagan Scotten, a federal prosecutor assigned to the Adams case, announced his resignation in a scathing letter to Bove.
"No system of ordered liberty can allow the government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives," Scotten wrote. "Any assistant U.S. attorney would know
that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way."
"If no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion," he added. "But it was never going to be me."
Ahead of the DOJ's filing, Adams appeared on "Fox & Friends" alongside Trump immigration czar Tom Homan in what one observer characterized as a hostage video "broadcast live on national television."
During the segment, Homan smilingly threatened that if Adams "doesn't come through" for the Trump administration, "we won't be sitting on a couch; I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'"
In a separate sitdown with Homan on Thursday, Adams committed to "return federal immigration agents to the Rikers Island jail complex in New York City," Politico reported.
Thinly veiled Homan warning to Adams: “If he doesn’t come through … I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, Where the hell is the agreement we came to” pic.twitter.com/Pq0msJXZGb
— Emily Ngo (@emilyngo) February 14, 2025
In a column on Friday, The American Prospect's Ryan Cooper and David Dayen wrote that it is "striking just how awesomely gratuitous this all is."
"Nixon sacked his attorney general because the investigation was closing in on him personally and he wanted to escape. It was corrupt, but it made sense as a desperate last-ditch effort," they wrote. "Trump is letting Adams off the hook because he wants a stooge dependent on his goodwill in the mayor's seat while his deportation goons run riot in New York. That's a modest benefit at best; the mayor has limited tools to prevent ICE operations, though he's already offered up Rikers Island, the notorious prison that was due to close, as a migrant detention center."
"And it shows that the most willing enabler of Trump corruption in the entire government is Attorney General Bondi," Cooper and Dayen added. "This is approximately how she ran the Justice Department in Florida, doing favors for her donors and allies while firing attorneys in the department who got in the way, like the prosecutors looking into foreclosure fraud. The Adams case confirms that as long as Bondi is in office, the rule of law will be subordinate to Trump's personal motivations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Raskin Condemns Trump DOJ's 'Illegal Intimidation' of Anti-Corruption Division
"It's time to do your job and stop this outrageous sabotage of justice in the interests of naked political corruption," said the lawmaker.
Feb 14, 2025
Amid reports that attorneys in the Public Integrity Section at the U.S. Department of Justice—those tasked with fighting political corruption—were being intimidated into dismissing the federal criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Friday, Congressman Jamie Raskin demanded that Attorney General Pam Bondi "immediately halt" the actions of DOJ leaders.
A day after three top federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned following a demand from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to drop the case against Adams, MSNBC legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade reported that DOJ leaders had given the remaining lawyers in the anti-corruption unit an ultimatum.
They "put all Public Integrity Section lawyers into a room with one hour to decide who will dismiss [the] Adams indictment or else all will be fired," said McQuade.
Reuters reported Friday afternoon that one of the attorneys, veteran prosecutor Ed Sullivan, agreed to file a motion to dismiss the charges in order to spare the jobs of his colleagues in the Public Integrity Section.
On Thursday, Danielle R. Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned after receiving a memo from Bove saying the charges against Adams would interfere with his ability to fight "illegal immigration and violent crime."
The acting head of the Public Integrity Section and the acting head of the DOJ's Criminal Division also refused to drop the case and resigned.
Adams was charged with bribery, campaign finance violations, and conspiracy offenses last year, with U.S. attorneys saying an investigation had found that he allegedly took bribes from foreign nationals, including to allow a skyscraper in Manhattan to open without a fire inspection.
In a letter to Bondi, Sassoon wrote that "Adams' attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed."
A lawyer for Adams told The New York Times Thursday that the allegation of a quid pro quo was "a total lie," but President Donald Trump's border czar, Thomas Homan, alluded to the deal in a Fox News appearance with Adams on Friday.
"If he doesn't come through," said Homan, "I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'"
Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of immigrant rights group America's Voice, said the Trump administration's engagement in the alleged deal reflected the president's "obsessive focus on mass deportations."
"His obsession to purge America of immigrants seems to have no limit: cutting a quid pro quo with Mayor Adams, to drop criminal charges in return for immigrant roundups; diverting resources from stopping fentanyl at ports of entry to deport workers; gutting entire immigrant-dependent industries that put food on the table and keep prices low; and intruding into the homes and apartments and going door-to-door to instill fear among people mostly legal, many citizens," she said.
Raskin (D-Md.) demanded that Bondi "put an immediate halt to this illegal and unconscionable intimidation campaign."
"Your Department of Justice has been caught engaging in a corrupt deal with Mayor Adams and now attempting to cover it up," he said in a statement. "It's time to do your job and stop this outrageous sabotage of justice in the interests of naked political corruption."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy