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
corruption
'Brazenly Corrupt': Firm Behind Trump Meme Coin Plans 'Most Exclusive Dinner' for Top Buyers
"The most exclusive dinner in the world with the most corrupt president in American history," said one congressional Democrat.
Oct 02, 2026
The company behind US President Donald Trump's meme coin has launched a competition giving participants an opportunity to attend "the most exclusive dinner in the world"—all they have to do is buy a digital token with no inherent value that has lost investors billions of dollars while further enriching the president.
The Washington Sun reported Thursday that winners of the competition, held by CIC Digital and Fight Fight Fight LLC, "will be chosen based on a formula that seems designed in part to increase sales of $TRUMP in the next two months." The event invite promises the top 185 holders of the meme coin an evening with three unidentified "legends" and Trump, "plus a private meet and greet with a legend yet to be announced," at the president's golf club in Virginia.
The November 22 dinner will mark the second exclusive event for holders of Trump's meme coin, which has netted the president at least $635 million, according to recent financial disclosures.
Investors in the digital token haven't fared nearly as well: The cryptocurrency analytics firm Nansen has estimated that nearly a million people who purchased the meme coin through the end of June 2026 had combined losses of around $4 billion.
NEWS: Trump to host "most EXCLUSIVE DINNER IN THE WORLD" for top 185 purchasers of his meme crypto
Buying $1M (or less!) worth of $TRUMP coin should get you in Nov 22
Trump has pocketed $635 million
Investors down +$4 billion on Trump crypto
Invite ⬇️https://t.co/u8ck5DDR8v pic.twitter.com/ZUnBRCnN9g
— Jeff Stein (@jstein_sun) October 1, 2026
Last May, the top buyers of Trump's meme coin—including Chinese billionaire Justin Sun, who has poured tens of millions of dollars into the president's crypto ventures—attended an exclusive dinner at Trump's Virginia golf club and received a VIP tour of the White House. Ethics experts and other critics described the event as "corruption embodied."
News of the second dinner sparked similar outcry. "This is the most brazenly corrupt shit I have ever seen in politics and it's not even close," wrote Tommy Vietor, a podcast host and former spokesperson for Barack Obama.
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) characterized the event as "the most exclusive dinner in the world with the most corrupt president in American history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alito Recusal in Landmark Climate Case Called 'Bare Minimum' Given Big Oil Tactics
Oil companies warned Alito that if the Supreme Court didn't exempt them from state climate lawsuits, it could adversely affect his personal investments.
Sep 29, 2026
Following years of pressure from critics who called out his severe conflicts of interest, the right-wing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a major climate case on Monday, just days before the lawsuit was scheduled to be heard.
Next week, the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case nearly a decade in the making that could determine whether oil giants can face billions of dollars worth of lawsuits for climate-related damages and misleading the public about the planet-heating effects of fossil fuels.
A coalition of environmental groups and anti-corruption watchdogs has pushed for Alito to recuse himself from the case because the justice personally holds stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66—companies that face around two dozen climate lawsuits that could be directly affected by his ruling.
As Hannah Story Brown, the deputy research director on climate and governance issues at the Revolving Door Project, explained back in 2023, the Suncor case was promoted strategically by oil companies to allow Alito to get around his oil investments.
"While most of the lawsuits were brought against a dozen or so different fossil fuel companies, the Colorado municipalities are only suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy—the stocks of which Alito does not own," she wrote for The American Prospect. "This presents an opportunity to get around Alito’s likely recusal from considering the other four petitions to which ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 are parties."
In May, a Supreme Court spokesperson said Alito had declined to recuse because he had no financial interest in either company that is a party to the Boulder case and had been advised by court counsel that recusal was not required.
However, in September, just weeks before oral arguments, the group Consumer Watchdog found that shareholders, including Alito, had received warnings from the two companies that climate lawsuits could adversely impact their businesses and, in turn, his investments. Oil industry groups, meanwhile, told the court in briefs that a ruling in the Suncor case could make those lawsuits go away.
“Justice Alito has a direct and documented financial stake in the outcome of Suncor v. Boulder," explained Alexandra Nagy, Organizing Director of Consumer Watchdog. "Under the Supreme Court’s own Code of Conduct, Alito should recuse.”
Federal law expressly states that judges—including Supreme Court justices—must disqualify themselves from cases where their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." However, there has historically been a lack of enforcement for Supreme Court justices, because there is no higher court to rule on whether those ethics rules have been violated.
In 2023, following revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas' receipt of gifts and travel from billionaire donor Harlan Crow, the Supreme Court adopted its own nonbinding ethics code.
Also informing that ethics policy were revelations about Alito, who was found to have taken a luxury fishing vacation with GOP billionaire investor Paul Singer, whose hedge fund has invested billions of dollars in Suncor. Singer’s hedge fund had business before the court at least 10 times, during which Alito did not recuse himself.
The justices ultimately still determine whether to disqualify themselves from cases, and critics have derided the ethics code as a “PR stunt.”
On Monday, however, the clerk of the Supreme Court sent a single-sentence notice to the parties in Suncor v. Boulder that "Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case." It provided no further explanation for the justice's decision.
In a post on social media, the Revolving Door Project called it “bad news for Exxon, and a win for the power of public pressure calling out the blatant corruption" of the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, adding that the group had been “calling for [Alito’s] recusal for YEARS.”
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), also celebrated the decision but emphasized that it should never have taken this long to come to fruition.
“Justice Alito’s recusal in this case should’ve been a foregone conclusion," Mulvey said. "While we welcome today's announcement as a step toward a fairer, more impartial process for all parties involved, Justice Alito's decision is the bare minimum we should expect from a justice on our nation’s highest court."
UCS filed an amicus curiae brief before the court last month documenting what it described as ExxonMobil and Suncor’s “concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products.”
“Internal corporate documents and other evidence now in the public domain show that the fossil fuel industry employed many of the same deceptive strategies used by the tobacco and lead industries, which have been the subject of extensive litigation," Mulvey explained. "In those cases, courts addressed claims that manufacturers possessed substantial internal knowledge regarding the dangers of their products while simultaneously conducting coordinated public campaigns to minimize, obscure, or cast doubt upon those dangers."
She added that "communities like Boulder deserve their day in court, through a process protected from financial conflicts of interest and from an industry hell-bent on securing immunity from liability.”
Alito's recusal could have major ramifications for the case's outcome. With only eight justices participating, a 4-4 split would leave intact a Colorado Supreme Court ruling allowing Boulder’s climate lawsuit to proceed, while producing no nationwide precedent that could shut down similar cases elsewhere.
The question of whether states and municipalities can sue fossil fuel companies takes on new urgency as the Trump administration halts federal action on the climate crisis and states and municipalities are left to fend for themselves.
An analysis commissioned in 2018 projected that the area around Boulder County would require between $96 million and $157 million to make only some of the necessary adaptations to climate change through 2050.
"What [Boulder] was saying was: 'We want damages for this because we’re spending a ton of money dealing with climate change," explained Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, in an interview with Slate. "'We’re having to reinforce roads to deal with extreme heat or extreme precipitation. We’ve got to rebuild infrastructure to deal with hundred-year floods that are happening every other year now. We’re dealing with heat stress and heat stroke and all the things that the people in our town are being affected by. We’ve never had wildfire seasons like this in the past. It’s very hard for us to deal with, and we’re spending a ton of money to upgrade systems, to fight the fires, or even to deal with the aftermath of these things."'
"What Suncor and Exxon are trying to do right now is stop the case from going forward," Sankar said. "What they’re saying is that this kind of case shouldn’t even get off the ground. There shouldn’t be a trial; there shouldn’t be any kind of judgment. They should be let off the hook before the trial begins."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dangerous for Democracy': White House Airs More Pro-Trump Propaganda on Taxpayer Dime
"The president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it," said a former White House special counsel.
Sep 28, 2026
The White House recycled material from President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign for a new taxpayer-funded ad that aired nationwide this past weekend, just weeks before the high-stakes November midterms.
The 30-second black-and-white ad features Trump walking down a hallway to audio of him vowing to "demolish the deep state" and "expel the warmongers from our government," even as the president wages an illegal and deeply unpopular war on Iran that has killed thousands and driven up prices at home and around the world. During the final 10 seconds of the ad, white text appears at the bottom of the screen stating, "Paid for by the US government."
The ad is just the latest taxpayer-funded, explicitly pro-Trump spot that the White House has launched in recent days, prompting alarm from lawmakers and government watchdog organizations who say the administration is using public funds to flood airwaves with the president's campaign ads shortly before an election.
Watch the newly aired ad:
The U.S. Government is up on TV with this spot --
It aired nationally on FOX yesterday during Illinois at #7 Ohio State and also during Fox News Sunday this morning pic.twitter.com/8PP9FPzUZk
— Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) September 27, 2026
Richard Painter, who served as the White House's chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said the taxpayer-funded campaign ads "could be an impeachable offense," noting that "Congress has expressly prohibited government-sponsored political propaganda, which is dangerous for democracy."
The federal government appears to have spent more than $1 million on pro-Trump ads in recent days, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing an estimate from AdImpact.
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the White House launched a taxpayer-funded ad in which Trump declares that "America will never be a communist country" and promotes tax cuts he signed into law, delivering a massive windfall to the rich and large corporations.
Norm Eisen, former White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, told the Times on Sunday that "the president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it."
"The prior ad was bad enough," said Eisen, "but this one openly repurposes prior political conduct.”
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that Republicans shouldn't be taken seriously when they claim to care about "waste, fraud, and abuse" as the president and leader of their party runs campaign ads with taxpayer money.
"What a cult this party has become," Murphy added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Airs 'Illegal' Trump Propaganda Ad ‘Paid For By the US Government’
"Weirdest way to violate the Hatch Act, ever."
Sep 24, 2026
The White House is being accused of violating federal law after it aired an ad glorifying President Donald Trump, which it explicitly said was “paid for by the US government.”
The ad was first reported by CBS News Miami investigative reporter Jim DeFede, who saw it airing on Fox News Wednesday night.
The 30-second spot features numerous videos and images of Trump, set to the song “Love Me” by JMSN. It includes voiceovers by the president railing against “communism,” a label he’s regularly used to hammer Democrats as the midterm elections approach.
"Together we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism, in America," it features Trump saying. "America will never be a communist country."
The video then goes on to amplify, in bright red letters, what the White House views as Trump’s signature policy accomplishments and goals: the “largest tax cuts in history,” “reigniting American manufacturing,” and “defend law and order and police.”
Footage from the 2024 Republican National Convention featuring Trump alongside Ultimate Fighting Championship president and CEO Dana White is then shown.
"He is the toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met," White is heard saying about Trump. "And nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves."
As White is heard slathering Trump with praise, a message appears at the bottom of the screen in large white letters: "Paid for by the US government."
DeFede described the taxpayer-funded message as "clearly a campaign ad."
Many onlookers found the use of government resources to flood the airwaves with nakedly partisan messaging chilling, particularly in light of Trump's recent attempts to censor critical media outlets and establish a state-run TV channel, while designating political opponents as "terrorists."
Fernand R. Amandi, a political science professor at the University of Miami and analyst at MS NOW—a network recently banned from the White House by Trump—said that the use of state organs for messages like these was an "unmistakable [sign] you live under an authoritarian, fascist government."
Longtime Senate Democratic aide Jim Manley said the ad was not just "creepy," but also “illegal.”
Provisions in annual appropriations laws explicitly forbid federal appropriations from being used for "publicity or propaganda purposes."
For decades, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has interpreted this to mean that the executive branch can't use federal dollars for material whose “obvious purpose is ‘self-aggrandizement’ or ‘puffery,'" or for communications that are "purely partisan."
The Hatch Act also bans federal employees from using their official authority or government resources for partisan activity. While Trump himself is not subject to the Hatch Act, most other senior government employees and appointees are.
The Trump administration has been accused of violating the Hatch Act on multiple occasions during his second term, including by using official agency websites to run messages blaming “Radical Left” Democrats for last year’s lengthy government shutdown.
During Trump's first term, multiple officials were found to have violated the Hatch Act for arguably less overt offenses.
Former Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf was found to have violated the law by hosting a naturalization ceremony orchestrated to generate footage for the 2020 Republican National Convention. Former Trump housing official Lynne Patton, meanwhile, admitted to violating the act by using her government position to recruit participants for an RNC video, resulting in a $1,000 fine and a four-year ban from federal employment.
It's not clear which government employees were behind the taxpayer-funded Trump ad. But Max Flugrath, the communications director at the voting rights group Fair Fight, said it was the "weirdest way to violate the Hatch Act, ever."
Keep ReadingShow Less
We May Never Know Who Bought the 2026 Midterms
This critical 2026 midterm election may be decided by dark money, big money, tech money. Above all, secret money. The money storm is now gathering. It could tip the outcome of many races. And we may never really know what happened.
Sep 23, 2026
Political consultants warn Democratic candidates not to talk about regulating artificial intelligence, Politico reported this week. Not because that would be unpopular—it would be very popular!. No, the consultants warned, it’s that outspoken candidates could be demolished by millions of dollars suddenly dumped into their races by tech companies.
This critical 2026 midterm election may be decided by dark money, big money, tech money. Above all, secret money. The money storm is now gathering. It could tip the outcome of many races. And we may never really know what happened. It all has received far too little attention.
According to The New York Times, “All across America, the midterm elections are drowning in dark money.” That term is used when the identity of the person giving or spending the money is kept secret from the public. So far this year, the Times reports, $1 billion of dark money is sloshing through the political system, and the real number will surely be much higher. I’ll be talking with Theodore Schleifer, one of the authors of that story, on our podcast, out Wednesday.
Voters should ask candidates: Speeches about democracy are nice, but what are you actually going to do to take on big money?
Committees with vaguely patriotic names spring into being and suddenly have tens of millions of dollars to spend. Ads focus on topics far removed from the real concern of the donors. It’s not just television anymore. Money flows to digital ads and content creators as well. The public doesn’t know where all this money comes from, but candidates surely do.
Earlier this year, super PACs backed by rival AI firms dueled on the streets of Manhattan, spending tens of millions of dollars for or against a single congressional candidate, Alex Bores, an outspoken industry critic. Across the country, AI and cryptocurrency companies spent more than $127 million in primaries this year.
Too often, money in politics becomes background noise. Journalists often look at only the fully disclosed “hard money” to candidates and ignore the harder-to-quantify secret spending. Headlines focus on flashy democratic socialists or on attacks on pro-Israel groups like American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Meanwhile, big industries do what they do, pouring massive funds into the political process.
What will be the partisan impact? Twenty big donors, the Times reported, mostly billionaires, have so far spent $1.2 billion on this year’s elections. All but two favored Republicans. Elon Musk recently announced plans to spend at least $100 million through his super PAC. On the other hand, in 2024 most dark money was spent for Democrats in federal races.
After the votes are counted, we may learn if and how money made the difference in many races. But we won’t necessarily know whose spending tilted the election. Perhaps more importantly, all this money surely will have a big impact on government.
For all this, thank the Supreme Court. It has demolished the campaign finance laws, in Citizens United and other cases. According to the justices, such unlimited spending is allowed if it is disclosed (it isn’t) and if it is independent (gimme a break). At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the ability to give unlimited campaign contributions was “the whole point” of the First Amendment. Our dystopian, money-drenched politics is a product of a Supreme Court badly in need of reform.
The media could do much more to explain what’s happening. The Times and a few other outlets have done stellar work. But far too often, campaign cash totals are treated merely as part of the horse race of politics.
Politicians themselves must respond. Year after year, politicians decry corruption but fail to act to pass stronger campaign finance laws. The next Congress must make reform a central goal. We need a law to end dark money and implement small donor public financing, as well as a constitutional amendment to undo misguided rulings such as Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo.
Public outrage about corruption is extraordinarily high across party lines, as a recent Brennan Center survey showed. This time of year is when we have the full attention of those who would lead us. Voters should ask candidates: Speeches about democracy are nice, but what are you actually going to do to take on big money? And then hold them to their promises.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Corruption of the Highest Order,' Says Troy Jackson After Explosive Susan Collins Report
"We deserve answers about every contract and every conversation that Collins and her team facilitated on the backs of taxpayers. The jig is up."
Sep 22, 2026
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson pounced on Tuesday after ProPublica published a damning story putting incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins at the center of what the publication described as a "sprawling pay-to-play operation."
In a statement released shortly after the ProPublica story dropped, Jackson accused Collins of engaging in "corruption of the highest order."
"Susan Collins delivered millions in taxpayer dollars for a corrupt donor bankrolling her campaign," said Jackson, "and then [President] Donald Trump helped her cover it up."
The ProPublica report unearthed internal records revealing an FBI investigation into defense contractor Navatek, now known as Martin Defense Group, for making campaign contributions to politicians in exchange for federal contracts.
According to ProPublica, former Navatek CEO Martin Kao told a group of FBI agents and federal prosecutors in 2022 about a 2019 meeting he'd had with the head of a pro-Collins super political action committee where he committed to cut a big check to the Maine Republican's campaign if she steered federal cash to his company.
After the meeting, ProPublica wrote, Kao "sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company" and then told Navatek executives in an internal email two months later that "Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts."
The alleged corruption outlined in the report went far beyond Collins, as Kao also provided FBI agents with a 50-page document that named "dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers, and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts."
However, the probe into Kao's alleged efforts to bribe politicians was shut down shortly after Trump returned to the White House in 2025, which Jackson said may explain why Collins "voted with him 96% of the time and has rubber-stamped his agenda to hurt Maine."
"Susan Collins doesn’t care," Jackson added, "that we’re losing our healthcare that ICE is killing people on the streets, and that we’ve been dragged into a pointless war—as long as her donors get their contracts and her coffers get filled. We deserve answers about every contract and every conversation that Collins and her team facilitated on the backs of taxpayers. The jig is up."
Annie Clark, Collins' deputy chief of staff, disputed the allegations made in the ProPublica story, and accused the publication of wrongly lending credibility to Kao, whom she said "began making outlandish charges about the Collins office, deflecting blame from himself" for his own criminal behavior.
"The seven-year-old allegations made against Sen. Collins and her staff in this piece are categorically false," said Clark. "There have never been any allegations of wrongdoing by the Collins for Senator campaign, and the campaign was never the target of the FBI investigation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Incredible Story of Corruption': Bombshell Report Puts Susan Collins at Center of Massive Bribery Scheme
ProPublica reported that the US senator from Maine, now running for a sixth term, was the "most important patron" of a defense company accused of bribing members of Congress for federal contracts.
Sep 22, 2026
Explosive reporting published Tuesday by the investigative outlet ProPublica details how US Sen. Susan Collins was at the center of a "sprawling pay-to-play operation" under which the chief executive of a Hawaii-based defense contractor allegedly funneled campaign cash to lawmakers in exchange for lucrative federal contracts.
ProPublica's story—based on internal emails, thousands of pages of legal records, interviews, and other evidence—reveals for the first time the existence of an FBI investigation into possible bribery of members of Congress, including Collins, by the defense contractor Navatek, a probe that was shuttered after President Donald Trump took office for his second term.
In late 2019, according to ProPublica, the head of a pro-Collins super PAC, Scott Reed, met with then-Navatek CEO Martin Kao and other executives at a Washington, DC bakery and asked them for a $500,000 donation to the longtime Maine senator's 2020 reelection bid.
"If they cut a big check, the CEO told Reed, Navatek wanted Collins to guarantee tens of millions of dollars in additional federal funding," ProPublica reported. "After the Corner Bakery meeting, [Kao] sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company. Two months later, he told Navatek executives that Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts, according to an internal company email."
In 2022, Kao pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions. The $150,000 check to the pro-Collins group, the 1820 PAC, was funneled through an entity titled "the Society of Young Women Scientist [sic] and Engineers." The money flowed from Navatek's account, violating the ban on federal government contractors making campaign donations.
This is an incredible story of corruption.
I kinda love that the fake shell company the weapons maker used to bribe Susan Collins was called “Society of Young Women Scientist and Engineers LLC.” https://t.co/I06XpPHIO9
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) September 22, 2026
ProPubulica revealed that Kao, facing years in federal prison, handed FBI agents "a 50-page document naming dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers, and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts." Kao also told federal agents that Navatek’s federally funded research "was of no real value," according to ProPublica.
"Of all the politicians Navatek courted under Kao’s leadership, Collins was its most important patron," the investigative outlet reported. "The senator’s office steered government contracts worth millions toward the company while her campaign was pumping Kao and his network for donations, according to emails seen by ProPublica. Sometimes they cut checks within 24 hours of the annual defense spending bill, which funds military contracts, clearing a key Senate hurdle."
Collins, who is currently running for a sixth Senate term, denied allegations of bribery through a spokesperson, who dismissed Kao's claims as "outlandish" and said the Collins campaign "disgorged the illegal contributions that Martin Kao had made without our knowledge."
But ProPublica's reporting details, with documentary evidence, Collins' yearslong relationship with Kao, who first met the Maine senator face-to-face in 2018.
"In that first meeting with Collins and her staff, Kao pitched an $8 million boat hull research project for Navatek and [the University of Maine]. Collins seemed supportive," the outlet noted. Kao funneled donations to Collins' campaign, and the senator later included funding for Navatek's project in the annual US military budget.
"Emails showed her staff made it clear to the Navy that it should send the money to Navatek," ProPublica reported.
The outlet also revealed the details of a 2019 meeting between Kao, Collins, and Amy Abbott, who was then serving as the campaign finance director for the senator's 2020 reelection campaign. The meeting took place before an event at Navatek's Maine headquarters, where Collins posed for pictures with Kao.
"Before the event, Kao said, Collins, Abbott, and another staffer met with him in private," ProPublica reported. "One of the staffers told Kao the campaign expected more donations. It was in this meeting that Collins said, 'You’ve seen me deliver,' he told the FBI."
Martin Kao, second from left, was pictured with Sen. Susan Collins during an event in August 2019. (Photo: Sen. Susan Collins/Facebook)
Avi Asher-Schapiro, one of four ProPublica reporters who bylined the bombshell story, lamented that "we may never know the full story" of the large-scale bribery scheme alleged by Kao because the Trump administration "took a wrecking ball to the FBI teams and DOJ lawyers specializing in these cases—everyone who worked it is gone."
"And as far as we know," Asher-Schapiro added, "the FBI abandoned a witness who might have been able to expose a generational corruption scandal."
The report was published just weeks before the November midterms, when Collins will attempt to retain her seat against former Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson, who has said that billionaires and corporate-funded super PACs "have her in their pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Time for Some Reflection (Pool):How No-Bid Contracts Can Make Waters Murkier
No-bid contracts should be used sparingly, probably only in emergency situations where time is truly of the essence.
Sep 20, 2026
A manager at a Trump Organization golf club in New Jersey traveled to the World of Concrete trade show in January of this year seeking ideas to fix the sometimes leaky and mucky Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC.
Ultimately a Trump-tapped firm was handed a $6.9 million no-bid contract to get the work done, using an exemption to the awarding of federal contracts reserved for urgent situations, such as the prevention of "serious injury, financial or other, to the government.”
The urgency? The desire to have the work completed for the July 4, 2026, 250-year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The pool, the New York Times reported, “is the latest in a string of cases where Mr. Trump’s government invoked special powers to shut down required competition, and then handed contracts directly to the president’s preferred vendors.”
Even beyond the reflecting pool, the Trump administration has been prolific with the use of no-bid contracts.
That story is among the many details that, according to a New York Times piece, “show that the the pool, which was supposed to reflect the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, became a striking reflection instead of the second Trump administration’s willingness to skirt laws, expend millions of dollars, ignore facts and punish truth tellers in service of the president’s demands to put his mark on the capital.”
It can also serve as a handy checklist of the arguments against no-bid contracts in general, whether handed out by this administration or another, at the federal level or the state or local and a good opportunity to look at what can go wrong when governments employ no-bid contracting.
The most obvious argument against no-bid contracts is that the public agency has no cost comparisons to ensure that the agency is getting a fair price for the work being done. Was this the best price available to do the repair work for the reflecting pool? We will never know.
Once a company locks into a contract, they don’t need to look over their shoulder that some other company might come along. The lack of competition provides a possible incentive for poor quality work. A federal judge–and Trump appointee at that–has indicated the problem with the Reflecting Pool was the result of “flawed installation by the contractor” and the rush to complete the job,
No bid contracts leave governments with no comparable information about how work will be done. Can other vendors do it better, or faster, or more effectively, or with better paid workers? Will one bidder account for something another one doesn’t, and bring up important issues not previously considered? Those questions go unanswered in no-bid work. Had the work on the Reflecting Pool been bid out, it’s possible we would have had a deeper discussion about what the project truly entailed–like, maybe that coating doesn’t play well with the sun, or the filtration system.
No-bid contracting also provides plenty of opportunities for favoritism in awarding contracts–and the Trump administration has granted plenty of such contracts to donors and long-time associates of the president’s private businesses, and even to the organizers of Trump’s January 6 rally that preceded the assault on the U.S. Capitol and its police force.
It can also lead to a further corruption of the process–creating a platform for kickbacks or other pay-to-play schemes that might benefit a person at an agency instead of–or in addition to–whatever the benefit to the public that was intended to be derived through the contract.
Even beyond the reflecting pool, the Trump administration has been prolific with the use of no-bid contracts. Federal no-bid contracts included Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noel’s funding of a $220 million ad campaign, for which she was eventually fired; eleven polar ice-breaking ships Trump decided to buy after a golf game with Finland’s president; and detention center facilities to keep up with the huge number of individuals rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It’s important to remember that it’s not just the federal government that has inked no-bid contracts that didn’t end well.
Investigators found the then-CEO of Chicago Public Schools had received a kickback for awarding a no-bid contract, and a former executive director of a Norfolk, Virginia housing authority was found to have steered no-bid contracts to former colleagues and business associations. PennLive found that the Pennsylvania state legislature used no-bid contracts for a wide range of services but required little in the way of accountability for the work of the contract, essentially creating “slush funds” for both the Republican and Democratic leadership. Former chief White House ethics counsel under George W. Bush said this system was “an invitation to corruption.” An audit of no-bid city contracts in Berkeley, California showed that, even without evidence of corruption or wrongdoing, some of the contracts were simply bad deals for the city.
In general, no-bid contracts should be used sparingly, probably only in emergency situations where time is truly of the essence. While some have argued that no-bid contracting could also be useful in situations where the work is so specialized that only one firm can perform it, it probably wouldn't hurt to put out a competitive bid in that scenario just to see what others can offer.
In any case, pool work, even for a really large pool, most definitely should have been competitively procured.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Urgent Demand for Oversight, Analysis Details 105 US Lawmakers Personally Invested in the AI Industry
Despite catastrophic warnings from AI industry insiders, Congress has adjourned until after the midterms without passing any laws to regulate the technology.
Sep 18, 2026
Despite increasingly urgent calls to regulate artificial intelligence, including from industry insiders who warn of potentially catastrophic consequences, the US Congress has continued to drag its feet on meaningful legislation.
A report released Friday by Sludge may shed some light on one potential roadblock. It found that 1 in 5 members of Congress has household investments in AI companies or those producing the infrastructure behind the technology.
Sludge revealed that:
At least 105 members of Congress have disclosed that they, their spouse, or their dependent children hold stocks or other investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data center companies, and specialized AI firms, with a total value of between $75 million and $287 million.
Most of the money is invested in large tech companies like Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet. But lawmakers also report their households holding and trading shares in smaller publicly traded AI companies like BigBear.ai, Tempus AI, and C3 AI, as well as little-known private startups whose shares are unavailable to ordinary investors.
Of the lawmakers reporting investments, at least 44 sit on committees with jurisdiction over legislation dealing with AI safety, consumer protections, semiconductor policy, and trade with China.
The report identifies several lawmakers in positions of influence over Congress' AI policy whose households simultaneously have deep investments in the industry.
One of them is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—created to help direct the party's legislative agenda around the emerging technology.
According to Sludge, Gottheimer's household has investments in several key chipmaking and semiconductor companies, and he has regularly traded in AI stocks while in Congress.
The report draws attention to the "scores of sales" he made on April 9, 2025, when President Donald Trump announced a surprise 90-day pause on his "Liberation Day" tariffs, an announcement that led stocks for many AI companies to surge in value. Gottheimer has previously told Sludge that his investments are managed by a third party and that he does not make the decisions himself.
Gottheimer is one of the Democrats helping shape the party's approach to regulating AI. Earlier this month, amid concerns about the growing capability of "superintelligent" AI agents that can exceed human capability, he joined with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) to introduce the Stop Rogue AI Act.
This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to adopt a series of standards and best practices that AI companies could implement to track the behavior of agents. However, critics have argued that the bill's voluntary guidelines fall short of what is necessary to rein in the industry.
Gottheimer's proposal is one of several measures Democrats have proposed in recent weeks following warnings from Anthropic researchers Jacob Coxon and Evan Hubinger that AI systems could wipe out humanity if allowed to escape human control.
Others include a more muscular bill proposed earlier this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) that would permanently ban the development of superintelligent AI and pause the development of advanced AI until a federal regulatory body can be established.
Some members of Congress whose households are heavily invested in AI stocks have nonetheless supported stronger regulation. According to Sludge, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) disclosed between $3.4 million and $8.4 million worth of stock owned by his wife in AI companies, including Nvidia and chipmaker Broadcom.
Khanna has said he does not personally trade stocks and has pushed for a congressional ban on stock trading. Despite his household's millions of dollars worth of AI investments, he has also voiced support for blocking the development of superintelligent AI until stronger safeguards are in place, broadly aligning him with the Sanders-Casar proposal.
Sludge found that investments in AI stocks are not concentrated in either party. Among the lawmakers who reported AI-related investments, 62 were Republicans, and 43 were Democrats.
One of the largest portfolios is held by the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plans to retire at the end of the term.
Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, reported holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tempus AI worth between $28.4 million and $134.9 million, while also buying an estimated $1.3 million to $2.6 million in Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tempus shares in 2026 and up to $12 million in Bloom Energy, which stands to benefit from the AI data-center buildout.
On the Republican side, the report singles out Rep. Lisa McClain (Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference and the fourth highest-ranking member of House GOP leadership. Since December, her household has invested as much as $515,000 in AI companies, including private stakes in Elon Musk's company xAI, as well as Apptronik and Saronic.
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, disclosed holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. She serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, which has authority to legislate on energy issues related to the controversial buildout of data centers around the country.
The report comes as members of Congress head home for a seven-week recess that will last until after November's midterm elections.
On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats—including Gottheimer, Khanna, and Pelosi—sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to postpone the recess until Congress passes AI safety legislation.
"AI experts and leading companies agree that the United States can lead the world in artificial intelligence while establishing reasonable safeguards that protect Americans and our national security. We can—and must—do both," the lawmakers wrote. "While AI safety experts and Americans increasingly urge action to confront this conflagration of risk, Congress fiddles."
"The House should remain in session until Congress advances meaningful, bipartisan AI safeguards," the letter concluded. "To our children who will have read a post-apocalyptic history, 'Why Congress Slept'—likely written by agentic AI—our inaction will be inexplicable and unforgivable."
Johnson, who has rejected calls for AI regulation and said companies should be in charge of regulating themselves, ignored the request and adjourned the House on Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdogs Sue to Stop Wall Street's 'Pay-to-Play' Access to Trump Truth Posts
"This brazen scheme is illegal many times over and is an affront to the basic principle that the government exists to serve the people, not to enrich cronies and insiders," said their lawyer.
Sep 18, 2026
A pair of watchdog groups on Thursday sued President Donald Trump and other US officials over their "pay-to-play" scheme that gives subscribers who fork over a monthly fee of up to $100,000 early access to key decision-makers' posts on Truth Social.
The president's Trump Media & Technology Group announced the social media platform's program in July, drawing swift criticism from ethics experts and Democratic lawmakers—including House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who opened a probe. Despite corruption concerns, Truth Application Programming Interface (API) launched early last month.
Because Truth API covers the accounts of Trump, as well as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, they are all named in the new suit—as is the president's executive assistant, Natalie Harp.
"It is no accident that the Truth API covers so many official government accounts," says the complaint, filed by American Oversight and Campaign for Accountability, in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. "Information the Trump administration disseminates on Truth Social through its official accounts can have significant consequences for the global economy."
"Truth API subscribers—who now receive this potentially market-moving information before the rest of the public—can profit on their early knowledge of what the Trump administration says, does, and believes," the filing stresses.
In other words, "the president is selling Wall Street faster access to official government announcements and lining his own pockets in the process," said American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. "Like so much of his agenda, this scheme is built to benefit the wealthy and well-connected while the rest of us are pushed to the back of the line."
Gerstein Harrow attorney Samuel Davis, who is representing the groups, declared that "this brazen scheme is illegal many times over and is an affront to the basic principle that the government exists to serve the people, not to enrich cronies and insiders."
Specifically, "this two-tier system of access" not only "serves no legitimate public purpose" but also "is irrational, inequitable, and illegal under the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution and the Paperwork Reduction Act," the complaint argues. After outlining the alleged violations of federal law, the filing asks the court to declare the scheme unconstitutional and unlawful.
"If President Trump has one talent, it is finding new and creative ways to monetize his presidency," Campaign for Accountability executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said of the man who has pocketed at least $2.2 billion—over half of it from his family's cryptocurrency endeavors—during his first year back in the White House, according to recent disclosures.
"In another era, Congress would be outraged and take immediate action, but since that's out of the question, a lawsuit offers the only possible remedy," Kuppersmith continued. "We look forward to discovery so the American public can learn exactly which companies are willing to pay up."
The suit—filed less than two months ahead of the November midterm elections in which Democrats aim to take control of both chambers of Congress from Trump's Republican Party—is not the first filed over Trump API. The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and the media outlet The Intercept sued last month in the Southern District of New York.
That pair—represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, the Public Integrity Project, and Altshuler Berzon—filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction earlier this month. The Intercept's CEO, Annie Chabel, said that "Trump doesn't get to charge people for his own public statements."
"The First Amendment doesn't have a paywall, and we're not going to let him build one," Chabel added. "Journalists and the public shouldn't have to pay the president for news he's constitutionally obligated to share with everyone."
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