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
crew
Trump Pocketed At Least $1.4 Billion in First Year Back in Office in Unprecedented 'Exploitation of the Presidency'
"The swamp has never been so fetid," wrote New York Times columnist Nick Kristof.
Jan 20, 2026
As millions of Americans face down devastating cuts to their healthcare and food assistance, President Donald Trump and his family personally enriched themselves to the tune of at least $1.4 billion during his first year back in office, according to an analysis published by the New York Times editorial board on Tuesday, the one-year anniversary of his second inauguration.
This unprecedented profiteering, which already amounts to 16,822 times the median US household income according to the Times, is almost certainly an undercount, as many sources of the president and his family's wealth remain hidden from public view.
"President Trump has never been a man to ask what he can do for his country. In his second term, as in his first, he is instead testing the limits of what his country can do for him," the board wrote. "He has poured his energy and creativity into the exploitation of the presidency—into finding out just how much money people, corporations, and other nations are willing to put into his pockets in hopes of bending the power of the government to the service of their interests."
Relying on a series of previous analyses from other news organizations, the Times notes several of Trump's key streams of income.
As has been widely documented, most comprehensively by Reuters in October, by far Trump's largest source of income has been his family's investment in cryptocurrencies, which has generated at least $867 million in new wealth for the family. Other investigations suggest the true number could be several billion when accounting for unreported assets and gains that have not yet been realized.
"People who hope to influence federal policy, including foreigners, can buy his family’s coins, effectively transferring money to the Trumps, and the deals are often secret," the Times board wrote.
The swamp has never been so fetid. President Trump has greedily raked in $1.4 billion (an underestimate) in the last year, often from those seeking favor. E.g. He accepts a Qatari jet and promises US forces will protect Qatar. The corruption is staggering: www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
[image or embed]
— Nick Kristof (@nickkristof.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 9:39 AM
It noted one particularly brazen transaction earlier this year, when an investment company owned by a member of the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) ruling family dumped $2 billion into the Trump family's crypto startup World Liberty Financial, just two weeks before the White House announced that the UAE would be given access to hundreds of thousands of the world's most advanced computer chips.
Inking real-estate deals has been another tool nations have used to buy influence with Trump. The Times cites a report from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), showing that the Trump Organization and its partners were planning at least 22 "Trump-branded projects around the globe" over the course of his presidency, including through hotels and golf courses in India, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Indonesia, and other nations eager to be in the US government's good graces.
In all, since his reelection, the Times calculated that Trump has reaped at least $23 million from licensing his name overseas, at times culminating in the appearance of blatant pay-for-play. In one instance, "the administration agreed to lower its threatened tariffs on Vietnam about a month after a Trump Organization project broke ground on a $1.5 billion golf complex outside of Hanoi. Vietnamese officials ignored their own laws to fast-track the project."
Another CREW analysis from July found that Trump visits his own properties roughly “every other day”—much more frequently than in his previous term—and that many foreign government officials have traveled to these sites to curry favor with the president.
CREW is tracking Trump’s conflicts of interest tied to his real estate empire, including:-Visits to Trump properties-Events held at Trump properties-Promotion of Trump business interests The pattern is clear: it’s all happening more this time around.
— CREW (@citizensforethics.org) July 22, 2025 at 2:56 PM
Trump also infamously accepted a $400 million jet, described as a “flying palace,” from the Qatari government. He plans to use the plane as Air Force One during his presidency and transfer it to his presidential library after leaving office. Shortly after receiving the jet, he pledged to “protect” Qatar and announced lucrative new military and economic partnerships with the country.
Elsewhere, Amazon spent $40 million on a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump, $28 million of which will be given directly to the first lady, which the Times said is far more than has been paid for similar projects. The company's CEO, Jeff Bezos, has critically lobbied the administration for favorable treatment regarding antitrust and defense contracts, and has seen his own wealth soar by nearly $9 billion over the past year.
But Trump’s income from media and tech companies has more commonly arrived in the form of shakedowns. He has made an estimated $90.5 million from settlements from X (formerly Twitter), ABC News, Meta, YouTube, and Paramount since his reelection, none of which, the Times argues, “were justified on the merits.”
"Mr. Trump’s hunger for wealth is brazen," the editorial board wrote. "Throughout the nation’s history, presidents of both parties have taken care to avoid even the appearance of profiting from public service. This president gleefully squeezes American corporations, flaunts gifts from foreign governments, and celebrates the rapid growth of his own fortune."
The report of Trump's looting of the presidency comes as roughly 1.3 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance coverage in 2026 due to Republican cuts to Medicaid and other assistance programs, while more than 20 million are expected to pay higher insurance premiums after the GOP allowed Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire last year. Roughly 1.5 million have already dropped their health coverage this year, according to a report last week from CNBC.
Meanwhile, about 4 million low-income people—including 1 million children—are expected to see their access to food assistance either substantially reduced or totally lost in the coming years due to Republican cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
While “Drain the Swamp” has remained one of Trump’s signature phrases, portraying the president as a crusader against endemic corruption in Washington, Times columnist Nick Kristof wrote, in the wake of his paper's new report, that under Trump’s watch, “the swamp has never been so fetid.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Win for Government Ethics' as George Santos Sentenced to 7 Years for Fraud
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said one campaign finance reform advocate.
Apr 25, 2025
Government ethics watchdogs on Friday said the sentencing of former Republican congressman George Santos to more than seven years in prison for fraud was a victory for "the many voters and donors who were deceived" by the disgraced lawmaker.
"Santos' brazen fraud and misconduct, which included serious violations of federal campaign finance laws, was an affront to his constituents, his donors, and the integrity of our democracy," said Saurav Ghosh, director of campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center. "The fact that he was held accountable should speak loudly to anyone contemplating similar actions aimed at exploiting the democratic process for personal gain."
Santos received his 87-month sentence from U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in the Eastern District of New York eight months after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts and admitted to using his campaign fundraising operation for personal gain.
The former New York congressman, who flipped a blue seat in a Long Island district in 2022 and was charged by prosecutors just months later, admitted to submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission, stealing financial and personal information from elderly and cognitively impaired donors to fraudulently charge their credit cards, and using campaign contributions for luxury shopping and a hotel room in Las Vegas.
"The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Seybert said during the sentencing that Santos had committed "flagrant thievery" during his brief political career.
He is required to report to prison by July 25 and was also ordered to pay more than $373,000 in restitution.
"This accountability for his pattern of unethical and illegal conduct is a win for government ethics," said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Ghosh praised "the diligent enforcement efforts of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which helped bring about this result."
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said Ghosh. "The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We're Working On It': Bannon Says Planning Underway for Trump 2028
"We'll see what the definition of term limit is," said Steve Bannon, the far-right podcast host and former top advisor to the president.
Mar 19, 2025
A former top advisor and strategist for President Donald Trump said Tuesday that secretive efforts are ongoing to prop him up for a third presidential run in three years, with not-so-cryptic remarks that included "we'll have a couple of alternatives" and "we've had greater long shots than Trump 2028."
Appearing on journalist Chris Cuomo's NewsNation podcast, far-right mouthpiece Steve Bannon demurred when asked if he had ambitions to run for president. He replied, "No, and I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028, so I've already endorsed President Trump."
When Cuomo pressed Bannon on the existence of term limits that would bar Trump from seeking a third term, Bannon said, "We're working on it. I think we’ll have a couple of alternatives, let’s say that. We’ll see what the definition of term limit is."
“We’re working on it.” Steve Bannon says Trump will run for, and win, a third term in 2028. (Video: NewsNation) pic.twitter.com/oycAONyOb3
— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) March 19, 2025
"We've had greater long shots than Trump 2028, and we've got a lot of stuff we're working on there," Bannon added. "We're not prepared to talk about it publicly, but in a couple of months, I think we will be."
Trump and his far-right allies have repeatedly suggested that the president would seek to stay in power beyond what is made possible in the U.S. Constitution, including the 22nd Amendment, which expressly forbids the president from serving more than two terms.
As Noah Bookbinder, president of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said last week: "The 22nd Amendment is clear: No president can be elected to a third term."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdogs Vow Accountability for Trump Crimes Despite Presidential Win
Public Citizen said it would "mobilize Americans to resist Trump's agenda of cruelty and corruption."
Nov 06, 2024
Government watchdogs on Wednesday said they are "not going anywhere" and will continue pushing for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to face accountability for his 34 felony counts and other alleged crimes, even as the Republican and his allies threatened the special counsel who has been prosecuting him.
"Trump will still be sentenced for the 34 felony counts on which he has been convicted, and other pending legal proceedings must
also move forward,"
said Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, which spent Trump's first term exposing corruption and unethical profiteering in his administration.
The group pledged to "mobilize Americans to resist Trump's agenda of cruelty and corruption" as it was reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents and his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, was in talks with the DOJ to wind down the federal prosecutions.
Under DOJ policy, a sitting president cannot face prosecution while in office.
Smith filed charges against Trump over the allegations, but the cases were thrown into uncertainty by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in July that held presidents have legal immunity for "official acts" while in office.
In legal filings that were unsealed last month, Smith argued Trump should not be entitled to immunity from prosecution because he "resorted to crimes" when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump said in recent weeks that he would fire Smith "within two seconds" if he won the presidency.
His allies, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), have also demanded an end to what they call "lawfare" against Trump, with Scalise
saying Wednesday that the election results proved American voters want federal and state officials in to "immediately terminate the politically motivated prosecutions of President Donald Trump."
Graham wrote on the social media platform X on Wednesday, addressing Smith and his team, that "it is time to look forward to a new chapter in your legal careers as these politically motivated charges against President Trump hit a wall."
Trump was convicted of 34 state felony counts in New York for falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. He is currently scheduled to be sentenced on November 26, but his lawyers are likely to ask for an indefinite delay.
There's also state case in Georgia stemming from Trump's attempts to reverse his 2020 loss.
The work of ensuring Trump is "not about the law," said Weissman and Gilbert, "will continue in earnest [and] will be more important in 2025 than ever before."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said Trump's victory "is making the urgency of accountability and checks on the presidency clearer than ever before."
"We're going to keep standing up against corruption and authoritarianism," said CREW, "as we have been for years."
Public Citizen was among more than 200 groups that announced a virtual event called "Making Meaning of the Moment," planned for November 7 at 8:00 pm. More than 20,000 people had registered as of Wednesday evening.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judge Halts Biden Rule Capping Credit Card Fees
"The U.S. Chamber got its way for now—ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," one advocate said of the ruling.
May 12, 2024
A Trump-appointed judge on Friday delivered a win for big banks when he granted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a temporary injunction halting a Biden administration rule that would cap credit card fees at $8.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule, which would have gone into effect May 14, could save U.S. consumers more than $10 billion each year. The decision to pause its implementation, issued by U.S. District of the Northern District of Texas Judge Mark Pittman, will cost ordinary Americans around $27 million each day it is in effect.
"In their latest in a stack of lawsuits designed to pad record corporate profits at the expense of everyone else, the U.S. Chamber got its way for now—ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," Liz Zelnick, the director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US, said in a statement.
"It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."
The CFPB issued the rule on March 5 as part of the Biden administration's commitment to crack down on "junk fees." However, the Chamber of Commerce and other banking trade associations—including the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association—quickly sued to block it. The executives of Bank of America, Capital One, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase sit on the boards of the groups behind the suit, according to The Washington Post.
"Banks make billions in profits charging excessive late fees," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Saturday in response to the ruling. "Now a single Trump-appointed judge sided with bank lobbyists to block the Biden administration's new rule capping these junk fees."
Accountable.US also criticized the fact that the suit was before Pittman at all, arguing that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed the suit in Texas federal court so that it would end up under the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 19 Republican-appointed justices out of a total of 26. The chamber has filed nearly two-thirds of its lawsuits since 2017 with courts covered by the 5th Circuit.
"The U.S. Chamber and the big banks they represent have corrupted our judicial system by venue shopping in courtrooms of least resistance, going out of their way to avoid having their lawsuit heard by a fair and neutral federal judge," Zelnick said. "It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."
The 5th Circuit's treatment of the case has also come under fire, as Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett has not recused himself despite the fact that he owns tens of thousands of dollars in Citigroup shares. While Willett has argued that Citigroup is not a party to the case, it belongs to trade groups that are, and any ruling on credit card fees would significantly impact the bank. Collectively, all the judges on the 5th Circuit have invested as much as $745,000 in credit card or credit issuing companies, according to the most recent publicly available information.
Donald Sherman, Gabe Lezra, and Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel of Citizens for Ethics in Washington wrote: "Judge Willett's refusal to recuse, and the lack of transparency about the rationale, reinforces the need for more judicial ethics reform to ensure that everyday Americans and government agencies have a level playing field when they go into court against corporate interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Remember Hitler,' Says 91-Year-Old Republican Behind Trump Eligibility Case
"I remember my cousin was with Eisenhower when they opened up the concentration camps... I mean, I understand protecting democracy."
Feb 08, 2024
The 91-year-old Colorado Republican who challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to be on the state's primary ballot referenced the existential threat to democracy and invoked Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler when explaining why she got involved in the case that came before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments on Thursday.
"You have to remember, as old as I am, I was born in the Great Depression," Norma Anderson, who previously led the Colorado Senate and House of Representatives, told NPR. "I lived through World War II. I remember Hitler."
"I remember my cousin was with [then-U.S. Gen. Dwight] Eisenhower when they opened up the concentration camps," Anderson continued. "I mean, I understand protecting democracy."
Recalling when she watched on her home television as Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, she added, "They're trying to overthrow the government is what I was thinking."
Listen to oral arguments for Trump v. Anderson:
Backed by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Anderson in September joined five other GOP and Indepedent Colorado voters in filing a lawsuit to keep Trump off the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution "as an officer of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection" from holding any civil or military office, unless two-thirds of each chamber of Congress votes to allow them to do so.
The Colorado Supreme Courtdisqualified the Republican presidential front-runner from the state's primary ballot in December, agreeing with the voters that Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated in the Capitol attack during the certification of the election results amounted to engaging in insurrection.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last month, at the urging of both the Colorado voters and Trump. The court has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—plus Justice Clarence Thomas, whose activist wife Ginni Thomas was involved with the GOP's 2020 election interference effort. None of them recused.
"On the merits, this is an open-and-shut case," Take Back the Court Action Fund president Sarah Lipton-Lubet said in a Thursday statement about Trump v. Anderson. "The 14th Amendment plainly states that insurrectionists are barred from holding office."
"Of course, the Republicans on the Supreme Court have shown they have no problem ignoring the obvious meaning of laws that conflict with their party's political interests," she added. "Donald Trump anticipated a moment like this one when he installed his right-wing supermajority. He thinks that these are his justices, on the court to do his bidding. Soon, we'll see if—and to what degree—he's right."
Common Cause was among various groups that submitted an amicus brief to the high court in support of removing the twice-impeached former president from the ballot.
"American democracy has never meant unchecked mob rule," Colorado Common Cause executive director Aly Belknap said Thursday. "Donald Trump sent an armed mob to the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of an election."
"His ongoing incitement has led to an unprecedented rise in attacks and death threats against election workers, judges, and other public servants," Belknap asserted. "There must be consequences for political violence—the Supreme Court must hold the former president accountable to the people and to the Constitution."
The presidential primary season is already underway. Trump has won the GOP's Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary by significant margins, setting him up to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November, unless he is barred from the contest.
The case before the country's highest court is "of extraordinary importance to our democracy," Campaign Legal Center senior vice president Paul Smith stressed Thursday. "It is vital that, one way or another, the court returns a clear ruling as quickly as possible to avoid any potential confusion in the upcoming presidential election. However the court decides, election officials deserve time to properly prepare for the upcoming election, and voters deserve time to make an informed decision."
As Roll Call reported Wednesday:
Several arguments made in the case offer the Supreme Court an opportunity to defer the dispute to a different branch of government, said Derek T. Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who focuses on election law.
"All of them are ways for the court to shift responsibility to another branch and to say, 'We're not going to deal with it now,'" Muller said. "And it leaves open questions for resolution, or maybe indeterminacy, in the weeks and months ahead."
During arguments, Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern said on social media that questions from Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Kavanaugh and Thomas "suggest to me that a consensus off-ramp is emerging: the notion that individual states cannot enforce Section 3's disqualification provision against federal candidates, or at least against the president."
"The problem is that Jonathan Mitchell's atrocious briefing and argument failed to put meat on the bones of this idea, so SCOTUS will have to improvise a justification," Stern added, referring to the Trump attorney who argued the case.
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also expressed "deep skepticism that a single state should be able to decide who can 'be president,'" he noted. "In my view this argument is as good as over. A majority will hold that individual states can't enforce Section 3 against the president, at least without congressional approval."
Currently, Republicans have a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, while Democrats narrowly control the Senate, though the November elections could change that.
While voters and groups in several other states have launched similar legal battles to disqualify Trump, the only other successful one so far was in Maine, where Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, cited statute and the evidence of Trump's conduct to determine his name should not be on the ballot. Trump appealed the Maine disqualification, but a state judge in January deferred a decision in the case, citing the looming Supreme Court ruling.
"People from across the political spectrum and from all walks of life—from former members of Congress to constitutional scholars to everyday Americans—have come together in this exceptional and fragile moment in the history of American democracy to reinforce the Constitution's very purpose in safeguarding our democracy from insurrectionists," CREW president Noah Bookbinder said in a statement after the hearing.
Anderson, also weighing in post-arguments, said that "we stand here today not just as voters, but as defenders of the principles that define our democracy."
"Our fight to uphold the integrity of our electoral process is not about partisan politics; it's about preserving the very ideals for which our forefathers fought," she added. "Donald Trump's actions on January 6th stand in direct opposition to those sacred ideals and today, we stand before the Supreme Court seeking justice to ensure that no one, regardless of their party or popularity, is above accountability."
This post has been updated to reflect Dwight Eisenhower's position during WWII.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Fraud Case Finding Suggests 'Major Tax Evasion': Watchdog
A court-appointed monitor found that a $48 million loan Trump has long claimed he took out "never existed."
Jan 28, 2024
A finding by the court-appointed special monitor overseeing former U.S. President Donald Trump's fraud case in New York placed questions about a loan acquisition—and potential tax evasion—back into the spotlight over the weekend, with a tax attorney saying the Republican appeared to have fabricated the loan.
Former federal judge Barbara Jones wrote to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron Friday about her review of Trump's business dealings through the Trump Organization, the company at the center of New York Attorney General Letitia James' business fraud case against the former president, who is now running for the GOP's presidential nomination in the 2024 election.
Ahead of Engoron's verdict, which is expected this week, Jones included in a footnote her finding that a $48 million loan that Trump has for years claimed he owed to one of his companies never actually existed.
"When I inquired about this loan, I was informed that there are no loan agreements that memorialize the loan, but that it was a loan that was believed to be between Donald J. Trump, individually, and Chicago Unit Acquisition for $48 million," Jones wrote. "However, in recent discussions with the Trump Organization, it indicated that it has determined that this loan never existed."
The loan would therefore be removed from corporate financial statements and forms submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, said Jones.
But previous financial disclosures, including forms submitted to the government as recently as last October, indicated that Trump owed money to Chicago Unit Acquisition—suggesting the disclosures "were intentionally submitted with inaccuracies related to the debt equating to tens of millions of dollars," according to Business Insider.
"It would appear, assuming Judge Jones' letter is accurate, that this amounts to tax evasion," Martin Lobel, a tax lawyer, told The Daily Beast.
Business Insider noted that Mother Jones theorized about the "mystery loan" in 2019, reporting that Trump's debt was partially forgiven by a hedge fund he owed money to after he paid about half of it off.
Mother Jones suggested Trump may have "parked" his debt, referring to the practice used by "big-time borrowers" to avoid paying taxes on loans that "could be as high as 39%."
"They purchase the debt through a corporation, parking the loan within this entity to temporarily avoid realizing income," wrote Russ Choma at Mother Jones at the time, noting that the practice falls into a "legal gray area" but violates federal tax law if the borrower parks the debt indefinitely with no intention of repaying it.
In Trump's case, Choma hypothesized, "there may have been no loan to buy, no debt to park; Trump might have invented a loan—and then parked it."
The letter sent to Engoron on Friday suggests that "Jones has apparently confirmed what Mother Jones theorized," said Roger Sollenberger of The Daily Beast.
"While the reasons behind claiming this fake loan are still unknown, at the very least he misled the government for years about his finances," Jordan Libowitz, communications director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told The Daily Beast. "It appears that Trump knowingly and intentionally broke the law."
Lobel noted that Jones' letter points to the kind of conduct that the Republican Party aims to stop the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from penalizing wealthy tax evaders. Earlier this month, the GOP secured concessions from Democratic leaders for a budget deal that would include an acceleration of funding cuts to the IRS.
"This explains why the Republicans have been so intent on cutting the IRS's budget," Lobel told The Daily Beast, "because they don't want it to be able to audit transactions like this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fresh Calls for George Santos Expulsion After Ethics Report Drops
"This report has one clear conclusion: Santos is wholly unfit to hold office," said one campaigner.
Nov 16, 2023
U.S. Rep. George Santos said Thursday that he will not seek reelection following the release of a sprawling House Ethics Committee report detailing an array of alleged misconduct and criminal violations, but government watchdogs said the congressman's plans to leave office after another whole year were far from sufficient.
"If George Santos had any shame or remorse over deceiving hard-working New Yorkers and his colleagues in Congress, he would resign immediately," said Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for Stand Up America. "Since he refuses to step down, House Republicans should grow a backbone and expel him from the House of Representatives."
The latest demands for Santos' (R-N.Y.) immediate resignation or expulsion—which have followed him since before he even took office this year—came as the committee's report revealed new details about mounting allegations against him that he stole from his campaign coffers, fabricated loans, and engaged in fraud.
More than 170,000 pages of testimony and supporting documents showed House investigators that Santos "sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit," according to the report. "He blatantly stole from his campaign. He deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit."
The committee conducted an in-depth investigation of a consulting firm called RedStone, which Santos allegedly established to help with his electoral campaign. But no Federal Election Commission registration for RedStone exists, and the probe found that thousands of dollars from the company were used by Santos to pay personal credit card bills and make a purchase of more than $4,100 at the luxury designer brand Hermes, as well as "smaller purchases" at the adult website OnlyFans.
"George Santos' pattern of dishonest and illegal conduct is outrageous and continues to get more," said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "He should have resigned a long time ago. It is to the House Ethics Committee's credit that it conducted a serious investigation and uncovered even more wrongdoing by Santos. Enough is enough, Santos needs to resign today."
Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest (R-Miss.) is reportedly planning to file a motion to expel Santos Friday morning.
It would be the second expulsion vote centering on Santos this month. On November 1, newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) joined 181 Republicans as well as 31 Democrats who opposed a resolution to expel Santos over his numerous lies.
Last month, federal prosecutors filed 10 charges against Santos, including wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. Santos pleaded not guilty earlier this year to 13 other charges, including money laundering and stealing public funds.
"George Santos built his political career on lies and deceit, so it comes as no surprise that the bipartisan ethics committee found he likely committed multiple crimes to obtain his seat in Congress," said Edkins on Thursday. "Even his Republican colleagues concluded his actions damage the reputation of the House of Representatives and warrant punishment. This report has one clear conclusion: Santos is wholly unfit to hold office."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) also said he would soon be "submitting a privileged resolution" to expel Santos.
"The committee's condemning report has made it crystal clear that the GOP's decision to wait nine months was not only irresponsible but dangerous," said Garcia. "George Santos has no place in Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Surrenders in Georgia, Groups Warn of Continued Threat to Democratic Institutions
"It is not inconceivable that Trump or a future anti-democratic leader could incite another mob to attack a different government institution," reads a new report by CREW and Common Cause.
Aug 25, 2023
As former Republican President Donald Trump surrendered at Fulton County Jail in Atlanta Thursday evening, a new analysis warned that his extremist political movement poses a continued threat to U.S. government institutions nearly three years after he and 18 co-conspirators allegedly tried to change the 2020 election outcome in Georgia.
Government watchdogs Common Cause and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on Thursday released a report titled Donald Trump: Threatening Courts and Justice, warning of the threat that is posed to the nation's court system by the outgrowth of the so-called "Stop the Steal" movement, which emerged after the 2020 election and led the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The groups noted that a document titled "1776 Returns" was uncovered by prosecutors as they investigated the perpetrators of the January 6 attack. The document detailed a plan to "seize and occupy the Supreme Court and other government buildings to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and force federal officials to overturn election results."
"It's unclear exactly why these attacks did not fully materialize, but the lack of a specific call to action could have played a part," reads the report. "This is in contrast to Trump's specific call for his followers to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6th for a 'wild' event at the Capitol. Given the continued incendiary, anti-democratic rhetoric toward government institutions and officials coming from extremist groups and leaders, it is not inconceivable that Trump or a future anti-democratic leader could incite another mob to attack a different government institution."
As Trump's legal issues have mounted this year, he has continued to make threats against the judiciary, including New York Supreme Court Acting Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over one of the former president's four criminal cases—one involving 34 felony counts regarding multiple alleged hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Shortly after being arraigned in New York in April, Trump publicly called Merchan "a Trump-hating judge with a Trump-hating wife and family whose daughter worked for [U.S. Vice President] Kamala Harris," ignoring the judge's instructions to "refrain from making comments or engaging in conduct that has the potential to incite violence, create civil unrest, or jeopardize the safety or well-being of any individuals."
Trump has also publicly said Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over a case in Washington, D.C. regarding the former president's alleged incitement of the January 6 attack, would not give him a "fair trial."
A Texas woman was arrested earlier this month for making a death threat in a voicemail to Chutkan, and Common Cause and CREW noted that "Judge Merchan and his family received dozens of threats, including death threats, in the immediate aftermath of Trump's comments" in April.
"Put together, these examples and others illustrate a clear pattern of conduct of Trump supporters levying threats against judges whom Trump publicly attacks, when, in reality, they are simply applying the law," said the groups. "Given Trump's ongoing legal fights, and his continued public criticism of the courts, it is likely that judges presiding over Trump-related cases will continue to face serious threats in the future."
The report was released the same day that Trump surrendered to the authorities in Atlanta following his indictment earlier this month in a case regarding his attempts to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results.
Trump's arrival at Fulton County Jail Thursday evening marked the first time in any of his criminal cases that officials released a mug shot, which he soon after posted on X—formerly known as Twitter—months after owner Elon Musk reinstated his account. Trump was banned from the platform after January 6, 2021, due to fears that he could incite more violence.
Earlier this week, as his fellow 2024 Republican candidates for president participated in the first debate of the election cycle, Trump told former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson in an interview that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is "getting killed" for indicting him and said his political enemies are "savage animals."
Willis has asked Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee to hold Trump's arraignment on September 5.
"Although the courts were ultimately not attacked on January 6, Trump's sustained anti-democratic rhetoric continues to make federal and state courts potential targets for his supporters," said Common Cause and CREW. "As Trump's legal battles intensify, and the 2024 presidential election approaches, the threat of violence posed by the far right to the judiciary is one which demands serious attention and vigilance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just a First Step': FEC Advances Petition Calling for Ban on Deepfakes in Political Campaigns
"The need to regulate deepfakes and other deceptive uses of AI in election ads becomes more urgent with each passing day," said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen.
Aug 10, 2023
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday urged U.S. voters to help "ramp up pressure" on the Federal Elections Commission and pressure the panel to open an official rulemaking process regarding the use of deepfakes—false video content generated by artificial intelligence—in 2023 election campaign ads, after the FEC announced it would advance the group's related petition.
After two separate requests by Public Citizen in recent months, the FEC unanimously voted to open a 60-day public comment period on the petition, which calls for rulemaking to clarify the meaning of "fraudulent representation" in federal law, making clear that campaigns that use "deliberately deceptive AI-produced content" will be penalized.
"Deepfakes pose a significant threat to democracy as we know it," said Public Citizen president Robert Weissman. "The FEC must use its authority to ban deepfakes or risk being complicit with an AI-driven wave of fraudulent misinformation and the destruction of basic norms of truth and falsity."
The FEC's unanimous decision, said Weissman, is "just a first step" toward ensuring voters will not face an onslaught of AI-generated campaign ads showing candidates in false, misleading footage and photographs.
During the 60-day comment period opening next week, he said, the public must "show the agency it must act to protect our democracy from deepfakes."
The FEC rejected Public Citizen's first petition in June, days after Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis' campaign circulated fake images of former President Donald Trump hugging former White House Coronavirus Task Force chief Anthony Fauci.
Trump's reelection campaign has also released audio clips featuring deepfaked voices of DeSantis—who is also the governor of Florida—and Adolf Hitler.
At the time Public Citizen said the FEC's refusal to regulate the use of deepfakes following those releases was a "shocking failure."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on Wednesday sent a letter to the FEC in support of Public Citizen's petition, noting that AI capabilities are rapidly becoming more sophisticated and that in the future, "it is possible... that even experts will have a difficult time distinguishing between real and artificially generated media."
"The need to regulate deepfakes and other deceptive uses of AI in election ads becomes more urgent with each passing day," said Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen. "The FEC's decision to proceed with a public comment period is an encouraging sign that the threat AI poses to our democracy may finally be taken seriously. Public Citizen will remain vocal about this looming crisis until an appropriate rule is in place."
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