

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.
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."
Pharmacy benefit managers "are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs."
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday published the second part of its investigation into how prescription drug middlemen are marking up the prices of specialty generic drugs dispensed at their affiliated pharmacies by hundreds—and in some cases, thousands—of percent, underscoring what advocates say is the need for urgent action by policymakers.
The FTC's second interim staff report on consolidated pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) found that the three largest of these middlemen—CVS Health's Caremark Rx, Cigna Group's Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx—"marked up two specialty generic cancer drugs by thousands of percent and then paid their affiliated pharmacies hundreds of millions of dollars of dispensing revenue in excess of estimated acquisition costs for each drug annually."
"Of the specialty generic drugs analyzed in this report and dispensed by the 'Big Three' PBMs' affiliated pharmacies for commercial health plan members between 2020 and 2022, 63% were reimbursed at rates marked up by more than 100% over their estimated acquisition cost... while 22% were marked up by more than 1,000%," the report states.
"For the pulmonary hypertension drug tadalafil (generic Adcirca), for example, pharmacies purchased the drug at an average of $27 in 2022, yet the Big Three PBMs marked up the drug by $2,079 and paid their affiliated pharmacies $2,106, on average, for a 30-day supply of the medication on commercial claims," the publication notes. That's a staggering average markup of 7,736%.
"The FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants."
"Such significant markups allowed the Big Three PBMs and their affiliated specialty pharmacies to generate more than $7.3 billion in revenue from dispensing drugs in excess of the drugs' estimated acquisition costs from 2017-22," the FTC said. "The Big Three PBMs netted such significant revenues all while patient, employer, and other healthcare plan sponsor payments for drugs steadily increased annually."
The new analysis follows a July 2024 report that revealed Big Three PBM-affiliated pharmacies received 68% of the dispensing revenue generated by specialty drugs in 2023, a 14% increase from 2016.
"The FTC staff's second interim report finds that the three major pharmacy benefit managers hiked costs for a wide range of lifesaving drugs, including medications to treat heart disease and cancer," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement Tuesday. "The FTC should keep using its tools to investigate practices that may inflate drug costs, squeeze independent pharmacies, and deprive Americans of affordable, accessible healthcare—and should act swiftly to stop any illegal conduct."
Khan's time as chair is limited. Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration is next week and he has named Andrew Ferguson as the next FTC chair. As Ferguson is already on the commission, his elevation to chair won't require Senate confirmation.
Greg Lopes, spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM lobby group, said Tuesday that "it's clear this report again fails to consider the entirety of the prescription drug supply chain and makes sweeping assertions about the role of PBMs disconnected from a full appreciation of their critical cost-saving role for employers, unions, taxpayers, and patients."
Last September, the FTC sued the Big Three and their affiliated group purchasing organizations for allegedly "engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs, impaired patients' access to lower list price products, and shifted the cost of high insulin list prices to vulnerable patients."
FTC Office of Policy Planning Director Hannah Garden-Monheit said Tuesday that the problem of PBM price inflation "is growing at an alarming rate, which means there is an urgent need for policymakers to address it."
To that end, U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, a bill backed by the AARP aimed at increasing transparency and "holding PBMs accountable for deceptive and unfair practices that drive up prescription drug costs and force independent pharmacies out of business."
"This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes."
Responding to the FTC report, Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project—a corporate accountability and antitrust advocacy group—said in a statement Tuesday that "the FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants, which are marking up lifesaving drugs like cancer, HIV, and multiple sclerosis treatments by thousands of percent and forcing patients to pay the price."
"By steering prescriptions for the most expensive specialty generic drugs to their own pharmacies, PBMs are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs," Freer added. "This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes, outlaw the rebate system driving up prices, and restore fairness and affordability to the U.S. healthcare system."