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
conflict of interest
How a Manufactured War Scare Could Produce a $50 Million Insider Windfall
Advance knowledge of both a military threat and its cancellation could allow politically connected traders to profit from the oil market twice—first from the panic, then from its disappearance.
Aug 03, 2026
Military threats move markets before they move armies. Announce a massive strike against Iranian oil, military, and infrastructure sites, and traders will immediately begin pricing in damaged production, regional retaliation, interrupted shipping, higher insurance costs, and possible disruption of the Strait of Hormuz. No missile needs to be launched. The announcement itself can add a substantial geopolitical premium to every barrel of oil.
Cancel the attack a few days later, however, and much of that premium may disappear just as quickly. Oil prices fall as traders conclude that the threatened supply disruption will not occur.
For ordinary investors, this is an exceptionally dangerous sequence. They must guess whether the threat is credible, whether an attack will happen, how much damage it might cause, whether Iran will retaliate, and how long any disruption will last. But for someone possessing advance knowledge of both the threat and its prearranged cancellation, the same sequence could provide an extraordinary opportunity to profit from a government-created price movement in both directions.
Consider a hypothetical political-corruption scheme.
Before the threat is announced, politically connected insiders go long 1,000 crude-oil futures contracts at $75 per barrel. A standard crude-oil futures contract represents 1,000 barrels, so 1,000 contracts provide exposure to one million barrels of oil. At $75 per barrel, the position has a notional value of $75 million.
This hypothetical identifies a corruption risk that should not be dismissed merely because it does not resemble the traditional envelope of cash passed beneath a table.
The traders do not necessarily put up the entire $75 million. Futures are leveraged instruments. Depending on prevailing exchange requirements, broker rules, and market volatility, a position of that size might require roughly $9 million in initial collateral, although a broker could demand considerably more for such a concentrated and conspicuous trade.
Then comes the public announcement: a massive military strike is imminent.
Television networks display maps of Iranian oil facilities. Analysts speculate about retaliation. Commentators warn that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed. Traders who had bet on lower oil prices rush to cover their short positions, while momentum buyers pile into the market out of fear that oil will soon become still more expensive.
Suppose the price rises from $75 to $100 per barrel.
The insiders close their 1,000 long contracts. A $25 increase across one million barrels produces a gross profit of $25 million.
But they are not finished.
Knowing the military threat is scheduled to be withdrawn, they immediately reverse direction and sell short 1,000 contracts at $100. To the public, the crisis appears to be intensifying. To the insiders, the ending is already known.
A few days later, the attack is canceled. With the immediate threat to oil production receding, the geopolitical premium collapses and oil falls from $100 back to $75. The insiders buy back the 1,000 contracts they previously sold short, earning another $25 million.
The two trades produce a combined gross profit of approximately $50 million. Measured against the roughly $9 million initially posted as collateral, that is about a 556% gross return. Not bad.
That figure should not be confused with a risk-free return on an ordinary $9 million investment. Technically, the traders would still control positions with notional values ranging from $75 million to $100 million. Futures margin requirements might rise. Prices could temporarily move against them. A broker might require additional collateral. A position of 1,000 contracts could attract regulatory scrutiny, although that possibility could be alleviated.
Inside information would not make those risks literally disappear. It would, however, radically reduce the central uncertainty facing everyone else: that is, which direction the market will move after each announcement. Knowing both turning points would make the enormous notional exposure far less worrisome than it would be to an ordinary trader.
Who pays for the insiders’ profits?
During the first phase, traders who had previously sold oil short may be forced to buy back their contracts as prices rise. Those purchases can accelerate the spike and provide liquidity for insiders closing profitable long positions near the top.
During the second phase, the losses fall on investors who buy after hearing the military threat. These late buyers are not necessarily irrational. They are reacting to public information supplied by government officials and to the genuine possibility of war, damaged infrastructure, and interrupted oil supplies. But they do not know that the threat is scripted to disappear.
When the attack is canceled and oil falls, those buyers are left holding the bag. Their losses become the economic counterpart of the insiders’ second profit.
What appears to the public as an unfolding geopolitical emergency therefore appears to the insider as a price chart whose two principal turning points have been conveniently set.
This hypothetical does not establish that any particular official, relative, donor, associate, or political ally has executed such trades. Suspicion is not proof. A serious allegation would require trading records, beneficial-ownership information, communications, financial disclosures, and evidence connecting traders to those controlling the announcements. Examining such records could be discouraged.
What appears to the public as an unfolding geopolitical emergency therefore appears to the insider as a price chart whose two principal turning points have been conveniently set.
This hypothetical identifies a corruption risk that should not be dismissed merely because it does not resemble the traditional envelope of cash passed beneath a table.
Government officials possess the power to create market-moving information. Military threats, sanctions, tariff announcements, regulatory decisions, and abrupt policy reversals can generate billions of dollars in gains and losses within hours. When advance notice of those actions is shared selectively—or when public policy is manipulated for private profit—the government itself becomes the instrument of market manipulation.
That possibility demands safeguards: timely disclosure of officials’ financial interests, meaningful restrictions on trading by senior policymakers and their households, scrutiny of unusual commodity positions surrounding major announcements, preservation of relevant communications, and investigation of accounts whose beneficial owners may be concealed behind partnerships, trusts, or shell entities.
The central question is not whether a hypothetical insider could make money from a manufactured crisis. The arithmetic shows that the opportunity is obvious.
The question is whether anyone with access to the script could begin trading before the public learns how the drama will end.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Todd Blanche Failed to Learn From Watergate
Will Todd Blanche see how his loyalty to Trump personally—rather than to the nation he has taken an oath to serve—is leading him to an unfortunate destination? Probably not.
Jul 16, 2026
In 1974, Watergate culminated in the first-ever resignation of a sitting US president. As Richard Nixon left office, his closest advisers were in prison—or heading there. Among them were attorneys who broke the law that they had sworn to uphold, including his former attorney general John Mitchell.
Acting AG Todd Blanche now seeks Mitchell’s job.
- Like Mitchell, Blanche was a successful lawyer at a prominent New York law firm before joining the president’s team.
- Like Mitchell, Blanche has served the president slavishly. He personally interviewed Jeffrey Epstein’s imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell who then got reassigned to a Club Fed; he guided the unlawfully incomplete release of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Epstein files; he spearheaded the effort to prosecute President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies; and he defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents publicly after they killed innocent Americans.
- And like Mitchell, Blanche’s ploys for Trump are sending him to a dark place.
The Latest Court Ruling
Blanche figures prominently in the recent opinion of Judge Kathleen Williams of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She ruled that Trump’s purported settlement of his $10 billion case against the IRS was a collusive farce.
The government had strong defenses to Trump’s lawsuit claim, including the statute of limitations bar; it asserted none of them. That's not surprising: Trump controlled the executive branch (including the IRS), which put him on both sides of the supposed dispute. Such a clear conflict of interest meant that there was no real “adverseness” between the plaintiff and defendant and, therefore, no “justiciable case or controversy” for the court to decide.
The purported settlement agreement established a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate, among others, January 6 insurrectionists whom Trump had pardoned. A separate, three-paragraph “release order” forever immunized Trump, his family members, and related parties from IRS investigations, claims, and audits that have haunted him for decades.
The court had harsh words—and sanctions—for the lawyers involved in perpetrating this abuse of the court process at taxpayers’ expense:
- Alejandro Brito represented Trump as plaintiff in the case. The judge referred him to the Florida Bar for consideration, review, and determination as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate.
- Daniel Z. Epstein’s name appeared on the complaint, and he signed the purported “settlement agreement” on behalf of plaintiff Trump. Epstein was a former White House senior associate counsel and special assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020. Because he is licensed to practice in Texas, not Florida, the judge barred his future applications to practice pro hac vice (special admission for a particular case) in the Southern District of Florida for a year or until her further order.
- Stanley Woodward Jr., associate attorney general under Blanche at the Department of Justice, signed the bogus “settlement agreement” on behalf of the DOJ. The court observed that Woodward had “represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump’s personal aide and a co-defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.” The judge directed the clerk to send a copy of her 56-page ruling to the District of Columbia bar, where disciplinary proceedings are ongoing against Woodward.
Blanche’s Plight
And the court turned repeatedly to Todd Blanche:
- His signature alone was on the IRS “release order.” Its attempt to waive tax audits contravened federal law prohibiting “executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations.”
- Judge Williams was “extremely troubled” by Blanche’s congressional testimony on May 19, 2026, as to why the settlement agreement was not submitted to the court for review. She found his answer “at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous.”
- The court noted, “In this case,… notwithstanding his prior representation of President Trump, Blanche did not recuse [himself]” from the IRS matter.
- Blanche’s congressional testimony that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” aspect of the settlement would not go forward proved that the entire agreement was collusive: “Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.” That party was Donald Trump.
- Finally, she directed the clerk to send a copy of her ruling to the State Bar of New York, where Blanche is licensed. On June 22, 2026, more than 100 former state and federal judges had already filed a 73-page ethics complaint against him there.
A Freudian Slip and an Unhappy Ending
Early in Blanche’s confirmation hearing on July 15, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked him about his relationship with Trump.
“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before correcting himself to say that he “was” his lawyer.
Blanche’s initial impulse was closer to the mark. And he has already compromised his professional reputation and personal integrity.
In the service of Nixon personally, John Mitchell was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury in connection with his role in the Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent cover-up. He spent 19 months in prison and lost his law license.
Will Todd Blanche see how his loyalty to Trump personally—rather than to the nation he has taken an oath to serve—is leading him to an unfortunate destination? Probably not.
Will he learn anything from Judge Williams’s stunning rebuke or the ethics complaints he already faces? Probably not.
Will enough Republican senators stand up and refuse to confirm Blanche, who is blatantly unqualified to be the next attorney general? Probably not.
All Americans will bear the consequences of his failures.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Brazen Crypto Corruption' Helps Trump Pocket $2.2 Billion During First Year Back in Office
One expert who has studied presidential wealth called Trump's windfall "completely unprecedented" in American history.
Jul 01, 2026
Annual financial disclosures released Tuesday reveal that US President Donald Trump pocketed at least $2.2 billion—more than half of it from his family's crypto grift—during his first year back in the White House, a windfall that experts say is without precedent in American history.
The disclosure report shows that Trump pulled in $635 million in royalties from Celebration Coins, an entity linked to the president's meme coin. The president also disclosed around $527 million in proceeds from token sales by World Liberty Financial, the Trump family crypto venture spearheaded by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
“It is completely unprecedented,” Megan Gorman, a tax attorney who has studied the history of presidential wealth, told The New York Times of the president's windfall.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "Trump’s obscene income is driven by various cryptocurrency schemes, leveraging his political position to exploit a scam-driven industry that he once said was nothing more than a racket."
"In doing so, he’s ripping off investors—to the tune of billions—who want to get in on the game with him, or think that buying his crypto products is an innocent means to show their support," said Weissman. "Most troubling, Trump’s personal profit interest has now aligned him with the crypto industry, paving the way for dangerous legislation that will facilitate mass rip-offs and even threaten financial system stability."
Trump's massive profits from an industry he's tasked with regulating represent what the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center (CLC) described as an "unprecedented" conflict of interest, notwithstanding the White House's laughable claim that "neither the president nor his family has ever engaged—or will ever engage—in conflicts of interest."
"We have never seen a president have direct conflicts of interest with his financial holdings and the policies he supports, and it’s another example why we need widespread ethics reform now," Kedric Payne, CLC's senior director of ethics, told The Wall Street Journal.
The Journal noted that, in addition to crypto profits, "Trump reported $4.7 million in income last year from Trump-branded watches, as well as $1.9 million in royalties from his 'Save America' book."
"Multimillion-dollar licensing deals linked to real-estate developers stretched from Romania to India to across the Middle East. A $6,484-a-month pension from the Screen Actors Guild continued paying out," the newspaper observed.
The disclosures also include tens of million dollars in legal settlements stemming from Trump's lawsuits against major companies, including ABC, CBS, and Meta.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said Tuesday that lawmakers must add language to the upper chamber's crypto legislation that prevents "the president, vice president, senior administration officials, members of Congress, and their families from profiting off the crypto industry."
"If it does not," the senator warned, "it will only turbocharge Donald Trump’s brazen crypto corruption."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abandoning the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' Won’t Solve Todd Blanche’s Big Problem
The consequences of a lawyer misleading the court survive the case in which it occurs, and those consequences can be profound.
Jun 05, 2026
Between March 2023 and December 2024, Todd Blanche earned millions of dollars as Donald Trump’s personal defense lawyer in the Stormy Daniel hush-money case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the election interference case. As Acting Attorney General of the United States, he’s wading through another Trump mess.
And he’s drowning.
The Fund is Dead; Long Live the Fund
On May 18, Trump’s lawyers and the Department of Justice (DOJ) created an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to settle President Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Even Senate Republicans rebelled against the prospect of using $1.776 billion in taxpayer money as Trump’s slush fund to pay January 6 insurrectionists.
To quell the uprising that was threatening Trump’s legislative agenda, Blanche met with Republicans on Capitol Hill. He made things worse as the weeklong Memorial Day break began.
Todd Blanche—who still operates as if he were Trump’s personal attorney—now has stunning legal problems of his own.
Faced with mounting pressure—from the public, congressional Republicans, and two judges who were questioning the fund’s legality—Blanche told a House committee on June 2 that the fund was not moving forward.
Some senators found comfort in Blanche’s assurances. But the same day, Trump was asked by the New York Post in a podcast interview whether he had dropped the Fund.
Trump said, “No, a court ruled against” it.
Asked again about the fund on June 3, Trump answered: “I love it. I think it’s so important.”
But the controversy over the fund’s status is diverting attention from an issue that is much more important to Trump—and a much bigger problem for Blanche: his signature on a document releasing Trump’s potential tax liabilities.
A Phony Lawsuit Leads to a Collusive Settlement
January 29, 2026: Trump filed a lawsuit against the IRS seeking $10 billion. He claimed that a former IRS contractor had illegally obtained access to and disclosed Trump’s tax returns to media outlets.
In the past, the IRS mounted aggressive defenses to similar claims. Following normal procedure, IRS attorneys prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining the flaws in Trump’s lawsuit and recommending a motion to dismiss it. But the Justice Department didn’t even enter an appearance in the case, much less seek dismissal.
Presiding US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams was concerned that there was no “actual adversity” between the parties because Trump was on both sides of the lawsuit: The president (plaintiff) controlled the IRS (defendant). She ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address the obvious conflict of interest by May 20.
May 18: With the court deadline approaching and Blanche’s DOJ struggling internally over a response to Judge Williams’ order, Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Believing that she had no choice, Judge Williams entered an order dismissing the case. The court observed that “the Notice [of dismissal] does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement,” and therefore “there is no settlement of record.”
But unbeknownst to Judge Williams, there was a settlement agreement—also dated May 18. In exchange for dismissing his frivolous case, Trump’s Justice Department would create a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
May 19: Another element of the settlement agreement emerged. It gained less attention but was far more important to Trump. Without fanfare, the Justice Department revealed an addendum that contained an extraordinary release in favor of Trump and “related or affiliated individuals or parties…” from any matters “currently pending or that could be pending..." before the IRS or other federal government agencies or departments.
The IRS has been a recurring thorn in Trump’s side. In 2022, two of his organizations were found guilty of tax fraud and falsifying business records. The New York Times estimated that the addendum's release covered audits that could have cost Trump more than $100 million on just one of his properties.
When asked who came up with the terms for the settlement, Blanche denied that he had a role: “The president has outside counsel, and their counsel, the Department of Justice, not me.”
Except Blanche—and only Blanche—signed the addendum sealing the deal.
May 29: Judge Williams reacted to a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges urging her to reopen Trump’s previously dismissed case. The court concluded that it had been presented with “grievous allegations that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.” She cited allegations that the IRS did not “‘even try[] to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims’ despite their active opposition to nearly identical claims in other litigation” and that “Plaintiffs’ claims were ‘clearly untimely’ and therefore untenable.”
Judge Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address allegations that they had: 1) filed a collusive suit; 2) premised the earlier dismissal notice on deception; and 3) made the court a victim of fraud.
Footnote two of the court's order focused on Blanche:
This addendum, as the non-party movants point out, may be in conflict with internal Department of Justice policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are "specifically limited to the immediate subject matter of the claim which was in fact compromised." The addendum was signed only by the Acting Attorney General [Todd Blanche]. (Emphasis supplied)
Blanche’s Problems Grow
Apart from Blanche’s conflict of interest problem, under DOJ policy dating to 1934, the attorney general doesn’t even have the legal authority to stop civil tax audits. And after the revelations of President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the IRS, it has been “unlawful for the President and any employee of the Executive Office of the President, among other officials, to directly or indirectly request that the IRS terminate any ongoing audit or investigation of any particular taxpayer.” (Emphasis in original)
If Judge Williams concludes that Trump’s lawyers or Justice Department attorneys deceived her in connection with the original dismissal of the case, even voiding the settlement in its entirety won’t end the matter. The consequences of a lawyer misleading the court survive the case in which it occurs, and those consequences can be profound.
The addendum gives Trump a stunning victory. And Todd Blanche—who still operates as if he were Trump’s personal attorney—now has stunning legal problems of his own.
It’s a classic Trump outcome: Trump wins; his loyalist loses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Voters Are Hungry for a Country With Consequences for Corruption at the Top
A new poll finds that large majorities of voters believe corruption is a big problem across politics and government and back bold reform.
Jun 03, 2026
I’ve written that corruption is the sleeper issue of 2026. Well, it’s awake. And the issue may be bigger than I realized.
That’s the implication of a new national poll released Tuesday by the Brennan Center. The survey was conducted in late April and early May, just before the president’s attempt to create a $1.8 billion slush fund to funnel taxpayer money to his political allies.
The results are striking. More than 9 in 10 voters believe corruption is a big problem across politics and government. Large majorities view corruption as endemic and deeply embedded in government institutions, from the Supreme Court to Congress to the presidency. They are dejected about the fact that scandals continuously go without consequences and shocking revelations fail to produce reform.
Margins are overwhelming among Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Vast majorities believe this corruption is part of why government doesn’t respond to major issues, including concerns like affordability and housing.
Most importantly, voters back bold reform. Eighty-three percent want a law that bars presidents from having conflicts of interest and holds them to stronger ethical standards. Eighty-one percent want a new federal ethics enforcer. Seventy-nine percent want a constitutional amendment that restores limits on money in elections, and other anti-corruption measures received similar levels of support.
It’s hard to find a set of proposals with a wider bipartisan appeal.
Yet there are notes here that should jar complacency. Listen carefully to voters. They define corruption broadly. Vast majorities see the spectacle of politicians catering to the interests of billionaires and big corporations as corrupt, not surprisingly. But to most Americans, wasting taxpayer dollars and even failing to respond to constituent needs are also forms of corruption.
Vast majorities believe this corruption is part of why government doesn’t respond to major issues, including concerns like affordability and housing. How do we connect these arcane government rules to people’s economic well-being? Voters are already doing so.
There are warning signs aplenty for politicians from both parties. Other polls have shown that voters think neither Democratic nor Republican politicians are better than the other on the issue.
Policymakers should understand that the public’s conception of what has gone wrong goes far deeper than super PACs or White House ballrooms or even slush funds. To them, it is a system that is fundamentally misfiring. A government that is not performing. And there is a willingness to name names and assign blame.
In some ways, these results are ominous. We often note that the 2024 election was the first time since the 1800s where the incumbent party lost the White House three times in a row (2016, 2020, 2024). This survey shows a deeply disquieted electorate, scornful of the political system and furious at its flaws. That environment created the conditions for President Donald Trump’s populist nationalism to emerge in 2016. It hasn’t gone away.
Yet this is also the kindling that can fuel new approaches, sharper critiques, and stronger solutions. If polls are to be believed, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has turned his political fortunes through a relentless and often stirring stump-speech focus on corruption.
The breadth of public unhappiness suggests a deeper moral critique. Even now, amid wrenching technological change and evaporating standards, people seem focused on an underlying core of personal responsibility.
My old boss, President Bill Clinton, often talked this way, especially when he was running for president in 1992. “The American dream that we were all raised on is a simple but powerful one,” he would say. “If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be given a chance to go as far as your God-given ability will take you.”
More recently, that ethos was given voice in Hungary by its new president, Péter Magyar. Running against the authoritarian kleptocrat Viktor Orbán, Magyar vowed that Hungary would no longer be “a country without consequences.” He pledged to oversee not just new policies but a thorough effort to clean house and to hold accountable those who had stolen from the people.
The new Brennan Center research suggests that voters here, too, are ready for a country with consequences. That will help shape the next political era—if we are ready to make it happen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dell Scores Major Pentagon Contract Weeks After Trump Promoted Company
The on-paper value of the president's Dell stock holdings has soared potentially by millions since he told Americans to "go out and buy a Dell" earlier this month.
May 28, 2026
Just weeks after President Donald Trump urged Americans to "go out and buy a Dell" and months after he bought millions of dollars worth of stock in the company, the computer giant was awarded a $9.7 billion Pentagon contract.
The Department of Defense confirmed the contract with Dell Federal Systems, the government-focused arm of Dell Technologies, on Wednesday.
Euronews reported:
As part of the Core Enterprise Technology Agreement (CETA), a Pentagon-wide Microsoft licensing and software procurement framework, the company will provide and manage Microsoft software licences, cloud subscriptions and on-premises software licensing across the US military, intelligence agencies and the US Coast Guard.
The contract would have raised scrutiny regardless, given the Dell family’s proximity to Trump in his second term. CEO Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, have pledged $6.25 billion to help fund the so-called “Trump accounts” that were part of the president's 2025 mega budget legislation, a policy that critics have described as a tax shelter for the wealthy.
This tied the Dell family fortune to Trump's political agenda. In recent months, he's also hitched it to his own personal wealth.
Follow this:First, Trump quietly buys up to $5 million of Dell stock.Then, he urges his followers to “go out and buy a Dell.”Today, his Pentagon awards a $9.7 billion deal to Dell. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
[image or embed]
— Bill Grueskin (@bgrueskin.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 7:45 PM
During his frenetic burst of stock trading in the first three months of the year, Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million in Dell stock on February 10, according to financial disclosure forms, when the stock traded at $126 per share.
Months later, at a Mother's Day event on May 8, he publicly shilled for the company's products—a possible violation of White House ethics policy—and lavished praise upon the Dell family:
They've done such a job, such a job on that. They put up a lot of money, too [for Trump accounts]. Put up $6.25 billion. That's somebody and he started making computers on his bed in college and selling them because they were better than other computers.
And he just—I said, "How did you do that?" He said, "Well, I did it and I just never stopped." He just kept going.
So, go out and buy a Dell, they're great.
After the president's remarks, the value of Dell stocks surged by 14.6% to an all-time high of just under $264 before settling at just over $260 by the end of the day.
The announcement of the lucrative new Pentagon deal on Wednesday has caused the stock’s value to soar, reaching nearly $318 per share as of Thursday morning. The value was $305 per share before the announcement.
In total, the share price of Dell stock has climbed by about 155% since Trump bought it back in Feburary. Depending on how much of it he owns, that means he could have unrealized gains of between $1.55 million to $7.74 million. About 47% of those unrealized gains would have come just in the last month since he used the White House to boost Dell stock.
DELL stock chart by TradingView
Acting US Navy Chief Information Officer Barry Tanner has insisted that there was no playing favorites when Dell was selected for the contract.
But Trump, who has increased his net worth by an eye-popping $3 billion since retaking office last year, according to the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has regularly faced accusations of lavish self-dealing.
In fact, a ProPublica report out on Thursday found that his White House adviser, Peter Navarro, personally intervened to push the Pentagon to give a $620 million loan to a startup linked to Donald Trump, Jr., out of dozens of companies that were under consideration.
Dell is also far from the first company to receive a Trump administration contract or other beneficial action after Trump purchased their stock. Earlier this month, NOTUS reported that Trump had bought shares in companies, including Palantir, Axon, and AMD, mere weeks before they were granted government contracts or regulatory relief.
Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council staffer under former President Barack Obama and now the host of the liberal Pod Save America podcast, said on social media that the Dell contract was an example of how “every day there’s another example of insider trading and corruption by Trump himself.”
Noting that Trump’s personal profit from the presidency far exceeds that of anyone else who has held the office, Tim Miller, a journalist and commentator at The Bulwark, said that a contract with such an obvious conflict of interest would be a “front-page story and weekslong scandal for anyone other than Trump.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrat Warns Trump on Verge of 'Largest Single Act of Grand Larceny in American History'
"Trump is considering stealing billions of dollars from the American people" with a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, said Rep. Don Beyer.
May 13, 2026
Democrats in Congress are warning that President Donald Trump is on the verge of "stealing" billions of dollars from American taxpayers in the coming days as his Department of Justice reportedly considers settling his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the DOJ, headed by the Trump loyalist acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, was holding internal discussions about whether to settle the suit that was brought by Trump and his sons, as well as the family's business empire, in January.
The case centers on the IRS's leak of Trump's tax returns during his first term, which occurred after he broke decades of precedent by refusing to release them. The lawsuit alleges that the IRS failed to prevent former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn from unlawfully disclosing tax information to media outlets, for which he pleaded guilty in 2024.
The leaks, reported by The New York Times and ProPublica, revealed that Trump had engaged in what was described as “outright fraud” and other “dubious” schemes to avoid taxation, and that he paid no federal income taxes in many of the years leading up to his presidency.
The Trumps are seeking a payout of at least $10 billion from the IRS, which is currently being headed by Trump's handpicked Social Security Administration head, Frank J. Bisignano, who reports to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
This creates an extraordinary legal situation widely described as a blatant conflict of interest, since Trump is suing an IRS that he effectively controls, which is being represented by a DOJ he also effectively controls.
For a case to be valid, however, the parties must demonstrate that they are actually on opposite sides; otherwise, the case can be thrown out of court.
US District Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida, who is overseeing the case, questioned its constitutionality last month and required the parties to file briefs by May 20 demonstrating whether there is an actual conflict between them.
According to the Times, however, the DOJ is considering settling the case with Trump before that happens, and there'd be little Williams could do to stop it.
Not only could Trump walk away with a payout of several billion dollars—if not the full $10 billion he asked for—according to the Times, the White House and DOJ have also discussed a deal for the IRS to drop all audits into Trump, his family, and his businesses.
Presidents and vice presidents are required under IRS to undergo audits of their annual tax returns, and a 2024 Times report found that if Trump failed an audit, it could cost him more than $100 million.
Trump's presidency has been defined by him and his family profiting from their positions of influence. According to a live tracker from the Center for American Progress, Trump and his family have used the White House to rake in more than $2.6 billion worth of cash and gifts.
In addition to about $1.5 billion from their cryptocurrency ventures, which they've used the White House to promote, they have received direct gifts—like a $400 million luxury jet from the government of Qatar—and legal cash settlements from media and tech companies worth over $90 million. On top of the IRS lawsuit, Trump has also demanded that the DOJ pay him $230 million over past criminal investigations into him.
But if Trump received even a fraction of what he demanded in a payout from the IRS, it could make the graft from the first year and a half of his presidency look like pocket change, potentially netting him several billion more dollars and possibly even doubling his net worth.
"Trump is considering stealing billions of dollars from the American people," said Rep. Don Beyer (Va.), the ranking House Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee. "He's already the most corrupt president ever by a wide margin, but this would be fraud and theft on a scale even he has never attempted. The largest single act of grand larceny in American history."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, added that for the DOJ to hand Trump a settlement "before a court rules" would be a "massive, unprecedented scandal."
"Congress must stop him," the senator added, noting that she had introduced a bill last month that would bar presidents, vice presidents, and their families from collecting settlement payments from the federal government while in office. If they file administrative claims, Warren's bill would also require that the agencies be represented by independent counsels appointed by the court. However, her bill has gotten little traction in a Republican-controlled Congress.
Bharat Ramamurti, who served as the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council under former President Joe Biden, said the IRS lawsuit was a "massive scam" that was "much worse" than Trump's proposal for Congress to provide $1 billion in taxpayer money to pay for his White House ballroom project.
Of the IRS lawsuit, he said, "Democrats should raise hell over it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Oversight Democrat Pushes Pentagon Watchdog to Probe 'Shady' Trump Family Contracts
Asking for an investigation, Rep. Robert Garcia noted that the Department of Defense “repeatedly awarded lucrative DOD contracts to companies after they became affiliated with the president’s sons.”
May 08, 2026
The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee is urging the watchdog overseeing the Pentagon to investigate "shady" defense contracts that may have benefited the family of President Donald Trump.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, sent a letter on Friday to the Department of Defense inspector general, Platte B. Moring III, calling for an investigation after the administration "repeatedly awarded lucrative DOD contracts to companies after they became affiliated with the president’s sons," Eric and Donald Trump Jr.
"While Trump’s illegal war in Iran is driving up gas and grocery bills for working families, his sons are cashing in on defense contracts funded by hardworking taxpayers," Garcia said.
He pointed to a contract awarded last week for the Air Force to buy an undisclosed number of interceptor drones from the West Palm Beach-based company Powerus, drones that Bloomberg reported have never been used in combat. The company has not disclosed the terms of the deal or the size of the contract.
But the deal instantly raised eyebrows, given that just a month before, the Trump sons were brought on board as Powerus investors after a golf course company they backed, Aureus Greenway Holdings, announced plans to merge with the drone manufacturer.
The Guardian reported that the company had pushed hard for its technology to be sold to Persian Gulf countries facing attacks from Iran in retaliation for the war that the elder Trump started. “These countries are under enormous pressure to buy from the sons of the president so he will do what they want,” Richard Painter, a former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, told the paper.
Garcia also pointed to a $24 million contract awarded last month to Foundation Future Industries, a company that produces humanoid robots designed to participate in warfare. Similarly, just a month before the lucrative contract was announced, Eric Trump became chief strategy adviser for Foundation Future after previously investing in the company.
"Since the start of President Trump’s second term, his adult children have started conspicuously involving themselves in a variety of defense-related contracting firms with specialties including rockets, robots, martial arts, and drones," Garcia wrote. "These new engagements come despite little history of the Trump family working in those sectors prior to January 2025. Many of these firms have then received grants, loans, and contracts following the Trump family involvement, raising questions about the ability of these firms to fulfill their obligations."
"Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.’s purchases, consultancies, and advisory roles create an unprecedented intertwining of President Trump’s personal financial interests with US policy and national security," Garcia continued. "Each new venture opens new opportunities to direct DOD funds to the first family’s pockets, and the Trump Administration appears to be taking advantage of those opportunities."
The weapons contracts are part of a much larger pattern of the Trump children being put in positions to profit from administration contracts.
The Financial Times reported in December that during the first year of Trump's presidency, his administration awarded more than $735 million in contracts to companies in the portfolio of 1789 Capital, a fund created by pro-Trump donors that Donald Trump Jr. joined in 2024.
Trump Jr. said last year that he and the 1789 firm "understand what the administration wants to do, because we helped craft some of that messaging," which Garcia described in Friday's letter as an admission "that the Trump family is using insider information for its own business interests."
Democrats in Congress have repeatedly demanded answers from the Defense Department about its processes for preventing self-dealing by Trump's sons and others with ties to the president.
In response to a letter sent in January by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the Defense Department said in March that its primary method of mitigating conflicts of interest is "through the diligent collection and review of financial disclosure forms for employees."
Garcia said that "this does not prevent Trump administration officials from directing taxpayer dollars with the purpose of enriching the Trump family, nor does it prevent the Trump family from profiting from insider knowledge of future Pentagon plans."
Noting the nearly $2.5 billion it has raked in through cryptocurrency and other digital investments, according to an estimate by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, Garcia said that "given this pattern of using the presidency for personal grift, the Trump family’s ventures into defense contracting are all the more alarming."
Garcia requested that the department open an investigation into what safeguards exist to prevent self-dealing by the Trump family and to disclose what contracts it currently has with companies tied to them and how they were evaluated for potential conflicts of interest.
He said, "The American people deserve to know that DOD awards contracts of taxpayer dollars ethically and prioritizes the best solutions for our national security—not who can pay the Trump family more."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Warns Trump and Burgum's Halting of Offshore Wind Projects Is Illegal
“Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests."
Dec 29, 2025
A week after the US Department of the Interior said it was immediately halting five offshore wind projects in the interest of "national security," a watchdog group told congressional committees Monday that the move is "not legally defensible" and raises "significant" questions about conflicts of interest concerning a top DOI official's investments in fossil gas.
Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), wrote to the top members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the pause on projects off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—projects that account for billions of dollars in investment, employ thousands of people, and generate sustainable energy for roughly 2.5 million homes and businesses.
The announcement made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week pertained to "five vague, perfunctory, cookie-cutter orders" halting the projects, wrote Whitehouse, but PEER is concerned that the orders were issued to evade the Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which the action to halt the projects likely constitutes a "major rule."
Whitehouse explained:
Under the CRA, a rule that meets any one of three criteria (an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or in pertinent part significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation) is a major rule. Interior’s pause likely meets all three.
As a major rule under the CRA, the pause cannot take effect until at least 60 days after BOEM provides Congress the requisite notification and report under the CRA, which, according to GAO’s database, has not yet occurred. Congress must use its oversight authority to unveil the truth and, as appropriate, and to enforce the rule of law.
He said in a statement that “Burgum’s move is designed to bypass all congressional and public input."
The CRA states that a rule is "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”
Press statements by the DOI and by Burgum last week were "statements of general applicability and imminent future effect, designed to implement policy," wrote Whitehouse, who also said the interior secretary embarked on "a coordinated rollout with Fox News entities."
On December 22, Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Burgum at 8:00 am Eastern, “What next action did you want to tell us about this morning?” Five minutes later, FoxNews.com published its first story on Burgum's orders, citing a press release that had not yet been made public and including a quote from the secretary about the "emerging national security risk" posed by the offshore wind projects.
"If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Burgum's announcement to Fox came at least one to two hours before Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acting Director Matthew Giacona provided the orders to the lessees running the five wind projects.
Further, wrote Whitehouse, "Burgum’s voluminous public comments in the hours and days since the pause further show the true purpose of Interior’s singular action."
"The national security pretext quickly gives way to broad and spurious talking points about the 'Green New Scam,' how 'wind doesn’t blow 24-7' (evincing Burgum’s seeming unfamiliarity with energy storage technologies), and unyielding promotion of liquified natural gas projects," wrote Whitehouse.
Aside from the alleged illegality of Burgum's order, PEER pointed to Giacona's potential conflicts of interest with BOEM operations and specifically with halting wind projects. Giacona is a "diligent filer" of financial disclosure forms required by the Ethics in Government Act, noted Whitehouse—but those forms point to potential benefits he may reap from shutting down offshore wind infrastructure.
Giacona reported his purchase of interests in the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) on September 16. The fund tracks daily price movements of "natural" gas delivered at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and is subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"Accordingly, a government employee who has an interest in UNG also has a potential conflict of interest with the underlying holdings of UNG (currently primarily natural gas futures contracts at the Henry Hub)," wrote Whitehouse.
PEER does not know whether Giacona continues to hold a financial interest in UNG or whether the offshore wind pause will have a "direct and predictable effect on a financial interest in UNG," but Whitehouse noted that Burgum and DIO have entwined the pause with the promotion of liquefied natural gas.
"It is disconcerting that Mr. Giacona temporarily had even a de minimis financial interest in natural gas futures while also leading the agency that manages the development of natural gas resources on the outer continental shelf," wrote Whitehouse, adding that Giacona also sold interests in the United States Oil Fund on September 3, while overseeing BOEM.
Based on Giacona's investments, said Whitehouse, “Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests. This is another misguided step in transforming the federal government into a franchise of the fossil fuel industry.”
“On public lands across the United States, the Department of the Interior has tens of thousands of additional active leases related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and geothermal production and mining for energy-related minerals," he added. "If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Glaring Financial Conflicts of Top Official Disclosed Only After Leaving Trump's DOJ
Chad Mizelle, third-in-command at the Department of Justice, managed to serve in Trump’s administration without disclosing his financial entanglements publicly–and now, only after his departure, can we highlight his conflicts of interest.
Nov 24, 2025
Chad Mizelle was tapped to serve as Chief of Staff of the Department of Justice before Trump’s inauguration even took place. In that critical role, Mizelle worked closely with Attorney General Pam Bondi to implement Trump’s agenda at the Department of Justice, or in Mizelle’s own words, “everything that the President wants us to do.” But after just nine months on the job, Mizelle abruptly left administration after he brokered a settlement for Hewlett Packard Enterprises’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, undermining the DOJ’s Antitrust Division for a political favor.
As a high-level government appointee, Mizelle was bound by ethics rules to submit a disclosure report detailing his sources of income and other financial entanglements. But despite our repeated requests, Mizelle’s financial ties haven’t been reported until now—nearly ten months after he first joined the administration, and weeks after his departure from Trump’s DOJ.
Mizelle’s financial disclosure report reveals up to $250,000 in investments in firms that the Department of Justice has pending lawsuits against, ongoing settlements to oversee, or the authority to investigate, which created conflicts of interest with Mizelle’s broad leadership role. Mizelle’s financial entanglements include:
- Between $15,001 to $50,000 in Apple
- In March 2024, the DOJ Antitrust Division sued Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets. The lawsuit is still set to move forward under Trump’s DOJ.
- Between $15,001 – $50,000 in Meta
- Meta is subject to regular review of compliance with a 2023 DOJ settlement, in which the DOJ alleged that “Meta’s housing advertising system discriminated against Facebook users in violation of the Fair Housing Act.”
- Between $15,001 – $50,000 in Visa
- In September 2024, the DOJ Antitrust Division sued Visa for monopolizing debit markets. The lawsuit is still set to move forward under Trump’s DOJ.
- Between $15,001 – $50,000 each in Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern
- In July 2025, Union Pacific announced a $85 billion proposed merger with Norfolk Southern. While the merger is subject to the Surface Transportation Board’s approval, the DOJ has the ability to weigh in.
Mizelle’s other eyebrow raising investments include between $15,001 – $50,000 in two more Big Tech companies, Oracle and Adobe (which apparently has an appetite for buying up smaller rivals).
Obtaining Mizelle’s Financial Disclosures
These potential conflicts become all the more damning when considering that none of Mizelle’s investments were publicly accessible until days before the government shut down at the earliest. To our knowledge, we are the first to report on his financial disclosures.
In July 2025, I requested Mizelle’s personal financial disclosure report (PFD), as well as any ethics waivers from the DOJ’s Departmental Ethics Office. Despite receiving confirmation of my request, as well as the disclosures of other officials, weeks and weeks passed without further word about Mizelle’s PFD.
Then, in late September, Axios reported that Mizelle was planning on leaving the DOJ. And yet, when I followed up with the DOJ Departmental Ethics Office soon after the news broke, I was told that Mizelle’s PFD was still “not finalized.” I followed up the next week, but by then, the government had shut down, and my email to the DOJ ethics office was met with an auto response: “The appropriation that funds my salary has lapsed, and as a result I have been furloughed and am currently out of the office.”
It took until November 13, the day the government began to reopen from the shutdown, for the ethics office to share Mizelle’s PFD.
The drawn out timeline for his filings seems too convenient to be a coincidence. Per the document, Mizelle obtained a 90-day extension to file his financial disclosure report. That his entanglements could pose a conflict of interest was not lost on the ethics official working on his disclosures. In July 2025, an ethics official commented on the document that Mizelle was “reminded of recusal obligations.” (Notably, my request for ethics documents did not return any ethics waivers that would have allowed Mizelle to work on issues with which he had potential conflicts of interest. But his apparent reluctance to submit run-of-the-mill financial disclosures creates the question of whether he would have sought waivers at all.)
All in all, this means that Chad Mizelle, the third-in-command at the DOJ for nine months, did not have to face public scrutiny of his financial ties to companies the DOJ was overseeing until after he left the DOJ altogether. Even without meddling on Mizelle’s part, it’s deeply concerning that he was able to operate his entire tenure, potentially working on matters pertaining to companies he was invested in, without any sort of oversight or public accountability. This ethics-evading playbook may be new, but I doubt it’s the last we’ll see of it during this Trump administration.
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