

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.
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," said one critic.
Even though President Donald Trump has long insisted that his proposed White House luxury ballroom would be funded by private donations, congressional Republicans unveiled legislation on Monday that would put US taxpayers on the hook for the project.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a proposal for a budget reconciliation package that includes $30 billion more in funds for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $3.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection, and $2.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
Tucked into the proposal is $1 billion for what is described as an "East Wing modernization project, including above-ground and below-ground security features."
Given that Trump is planning to build his ballroom on the area of the White House's East Wing that he demolished last year, this means that $1 billion in taxpayer money would be going to the president's vanity project.
Democratic officials immediately pounced on news that their Republican counterparts are planning to funnel $1 billion to the ballroom project, noting that the budget plan comes as Americans are struggling with the surging costs of energy and food.
"Zero dollars to lower costs," wrote Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee. "Zero dollars to protect your healthcare. A massive check for an out-of-control ICE, and $1 billion for Trump’s ballroom. This Republican budget bill is a disaster."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) responded to the GOP ballroom plan by declaring, "Oh hell no."
"Spiking prices, SCOTUS attacking democracy, collapsing faith in the US government," Casten added, "and the GOP is prioritizing sending more money to murderous ICE agents and Trump's ballroom vanity project. This is offensive."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) contrasted the GOP finding money to fund the ballroom with its unwillingness to extend enhanced subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
"Add the ballroom to the laundry list of things Trump said someone else would pay for," Ansari wrote. "Ultimately, of course, it’s always the American people footing the bill for his outrageous pet projects. A $1BN price tag while he rips away your healthcare. Sickening."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) welcomed the chance to have his Republican colleagues go on the record in favor of funding the ballroom.
"Just flagging that now everyone gets an up or down vote on the ballroom!" he wrote.
Elected Democrats weren't the only ones to hammer the GOP for the proposal to fund Trump's ballroom.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, called the GOP plan a "corrupt absurdity" that would make taxpayers shell out $1 billion for the president's "grandiose, bombastic, vanity project."
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," added Gilbert, who decried the plans for increased ICE funding as "abhorrent."
Kristen Crowell, executive director of Families Over Billionaires, denounced the ballroom funding plan as "a glaring symbol of misplaced priorities and grift," while also calling attention to other harmful aspects of the GOP's budget proposal.
"At a time when families are struggling to afford housing, child care, and other basic necessities," Crowell said, "the White House and Republicans in Congress are proposing to pour tens of billions of dollars into an already bloated and unaccountable deportation machine—while also carving out funding for the president’s own luxury projects."
Rather than ferreting out corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, Trump has undermined the very professionals who have that job.
“Waste, fraud, and abuse.”
It’s President Donald Trump’s battle cry as he dismantles federal agencies, fires hundreds of thousands of employees, and demoralizes the workers who remain. It’s also another of his false flag operations.
Rather than ferreting out corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, Trump has undermined the very professionals who have that job: inspectors general.
In the wake of procurement scandals and President Richard Nixon’s corrupt abuse of executive power for personal ends, Congress passed the Inspector General Act of 1978 to establish formally the duties and responsibilities of the office. Inspectors general pursue their missions with nonpartisan objectives and have a central role in holding government accountable.
Approximately half of the 70-plus inspectors general are appointed by the president, subject to Senate confirmation. They are the only independent offices within federal agencies designed to protect taxpayer money and root out corruption, fraud, waste, and mismanagement. IGs also investigate whistleblowers’ confidential claims.
Over the almost 50 years of their statutory existence, they have saved taxpayers billions of dollars.
For Trump and his allies, independent inspectors general have been a nuisance and worse. Following acquittal in his first impeachment, he replaced IGs for the intelligence community, State Department, Defense Department, Health and Human Services, and Transportation Department.
In his second term, Trump has moved more broadly and more rapidly. Typically, IGs remained in place when new presidents took office, underscoring their nonpartisan roles. But in violation of the statutory 30-day notice and “for cause” requirements for termination, Trump fired 17 of them during the first week of his second term. He had appointed several of them during his first term.
So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.
During post-termination interviews with the New York Times, the fired IGs said that their biggest concern was the “chilling effect” that their abrupt, unlawful, and unjustified terminations would have on others. Professor Timothy Snyder calls it “obeying in advance.” The inspectors general used similar language to describe their fears:
“Self-censorship”
“Why would you want to write a report that will get you fired?”
“Installing someone who has more loyalty to one person than to the mission of the office.”
“If you do the work that you’re intended to do and it’s not popular, then you will be punished.”
“Who will speak truth to power?”
The concerns were justified. Trump doesn’t want anyone speaking truth to his power.
On Tuesday, February 11, the inspector general for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Paul Martin, issued a report criticizing Trump’s proposed dismantling of that agency and outlining the disastrous consequences. The next day, Trump fired him.
On September 28, 2025, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced that effective October 1 it was defunding the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. It was a strategic kill shot because the council is the umbrella agency supporting all of the inspectors general offices.
Beginning on October 1, what had been the website for the council stated only:
Due to a lack of apportionment of funds, this website is currently unavailable.
The same line appeared at numerous Office of Inspector General websites, including the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Justice, Interior and Veterans Affairs, and by those of AmeriCorps, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, National Archives and Records Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Smithsonian Institution, and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
Contacting the watchdog website for the National Labor Relations Board's OIG page resulted in a “404 error.” The Architect of the Capitol’s IG page said “Not found”; another new page offered only hotline information and blamed the change on a “funding issue impacting Oversight.gov functions.”
The council also runs Oversight.gov, which houses over 34,000 reports from most of the OIGs, and operates 28 OIG websites that host legally required hotlines for whistleblowers to report suspected cases of government corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. That site was down too. The council site’s link to the “Inspectors General directory” stated only: “Not Found—the requested URL was not found on this server.”
But the so-called “lack of funds” asserted on the inoperative council website was not the result of the simultaneous government shutdown. The council’s budget did not require additional congressional authorization.
Rather, the OMB under the leadership of Director Russell Vought decided not to fund it. Vought, a self-described Christian nationalist, was a primary architect of Project 2025—a 900-page blueprint for expanding executive power (“the unitary executive”) and imposing an ultraconservative social vision. During the 2024 campaign, Project 2025 was so toxic that Trump repeatedly disavowed and claimed to know nothing about it; as president, he’s boasting about working with Vought to implement it.
Asked about its defunding decision, the OMB asserted without evidence that it shut down the IGs because they had “become corrupt, partisan, and in some cases, have lied to the public.”
Even Senate Republicans were outraged. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called on the White House to release the funding immediately.
So far, it hasn’t.
So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.
And remember that when Republicans in Congress say they are “outraged” at some action Trump has taken, don’t expect them to do anything about it.
"Today's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was a clear indication of MAGA Republicans' willingness to put blind loyalty to Trump before their oaths of office and duties to their constituents," said one advocate.
Democrats on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday said Republicans on the panel had broken several Senate rules by forcing a vote on judicial nominee Emil Bove, and questioned whether the committee's vote to advance Bove's nomination to the chamber floor was legitimate, since it took place after they walked out in protest.
As NBC News reported, a spokesperson for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Democrats are questioning whether the vote to advance Bove was officially reported out, and the question "may be up to the Senate parliamentarian" because the GOP broke several committee rules when Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) shut down debate.
The Democratic members of the committee walked out of the hearing room after Grassley said the debate would not continue regarding Bove, who was the subject of a whistleblower report that alleged he told Department of Justice lawyers to ignore court rulings that got in the way of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda.
Bove, currently the principal associate deputy attorney general, reportedly said the DOJ should "consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore" court orders that aimed to stop deportation flights from taking off, carrying hundreds of migrants to other countries without due process.
Earlier this week, Grassley rejected a request by Democrats on the committee to hold a hearing so the whistleblower, former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, could testify.
Grassley said he saw no reason to delay a committee vote on Bove, who in addition to being the subject of Reuveni's complaint, has been accused of belittling subordinates, making "power plays," and lacking professionalism during his tenure in New York's Southern District.
"Bove is an extreme ideologue, and his lifetime appointment sets the stage for the president and his allies to seek out favorable rulings no matter how unconstitutional their actions," said Caroline Ciccone, president of Accountable.US. "It's reprehensible that Senate Republicans silenced a basic acknowledgement of the facts, in order to jam through judicial appointments who will be a rubber stamp for Trump's out-of-touch agenda."
Bove also refused to condemn the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and played a key role in the DOJ decision to drop federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Bove's former role as Trump's personal attorney led 75 former state and federal judges to warn this week that his nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit was "deeply inappropriate."
"He has been trailed by a history of complaints, long predating his affiliation with President Trump about his temperament, his poor judgment, and lack of candor in front of the court," said Durbin on Thursday. "Think of it: We're talking about a judge for life."
Ahead of the committee's proceedings on Thursday, more than 900 former DOJ attorneys joined the call for lawmakers to reject Bove's nomination, saying it was "intolerable... that anyone who disgraces the Justice Department would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land, as it should be intolerable to anyone committed to maintaining our ordered system of justice."
But Grassley disregarded the warning and other protests from Democratic committee members as he cut off the debate over Bove during Thursday's session.
"This is out of order," Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said. "This is absolutely insane. What is the rush?"
After the rest of the Democrats left the room in protest, Booker remained in the hearing room and shouted over the votes of several other judicial nominees before joining his colleagues.
"This lacks decency. It lacks decorum. It shows that you do not want to simply hear from your colleagues," Booker said. "This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration."
Grassley denounced the concerns raised about Bove as a "political hit job," but Booker emphasized that "time and time again, there were allegations made against this nominee by independent people, by Republicans, by career professionals, and we are not listening to them or demanding answers."
As Bove's nomination headed to the Senate floor, Durbin and Booker also brought up questions about whether Bove was involved in a DOJ decision not to release files regarding convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was a former associate of Trump's and was found dead in his jail cell in 2019.
Booker wrote a letter to Bove on Wednesday, saying his "involvement in the DOJ's review of the Epstein files is a matter of significant public importance given the contradictory statements by Attorney General [Pam] Bondi concerning the existence of an Epstein 'client list' and DOJ's stated commitment to transparency. Furthermore, it warrants scrutiny whether the DOJ intentionally withheld evidence related to the trafficking and sexual abuse of minors to protect certain individuals."
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, said Booker had "correctly accused his colleagues across the aisle of abusing their power. We applaud his efforts to ensure the public could learn more about the serious allegations Bove faces, as well as the committee Democrats who walked out of the meeting in light of their Republican colleagues' actions."
"Today's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was a clear indication of MAGA Republicans' willingness to put blind loyalty to Trump before their oaths of office and duties to their constituents," said Buchanan urging senators from both parties to reject Bove's nomination now that it has advanced to the Senate floor.
"Senators on both sides of the aisle must show their commitment to judicial independence and keep this extreme, Trump loyalist off the federal bench," she said. "Voting 'no' should not be a difficult choice for any senator with an ounce of self-respect or respect for the courts."