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
ethics
'A Clear Breach': Watchdog Hits FIFA With Ethics Complaint Over Made-Up Trump 'Peace Prize'
Multiple rights organizations have slammed FIFA for giving Trump a "peace prize" given what they describe as his "appalling" human rights record.
Dec 09, 2025
International soccer organization FIFA has now been hit with an ethics complaint over its widely criticized decision to award President Donald Trump its first-ever "FIFA Peace Prize" last week.
The Athletic reported on Monday that FairSquare, a watchdog organization that monitors human rights abuses in the sporting world, filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee alleging that FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly violated the organization's own code of ethics, which states that "all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral... in dealings with government institutions."
The complaint then documents multiple cases in which Infantino allegedly broke the political neutrality pledge, including his public lobbying for Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize; a November interview at the America Business Forum in which Infantino called Trump "a really close friend," and hit back at criticisms that the president had embraced authoritarianism; and Infantino's decision to award Trump with a made-up "peace prize" after failing to help him secure a more prestigious version.
FairSquare zeroed in on Infantino's remarks during the 2026 World Cup draw last week in which he told Trump that "you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it in an incredible way, and you can always count, Mr. President, on my support."
The organization remarked that "any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Infantino’s comments would conclude that he a) encouraged people to support the political agenda of President Trump, and b) expressed his personal approval of President Trump’s political agenda." This was a particularly egregious violation, FairSquare added, because Infantino was "appearing at a public event in his role as FIFA president."
Even without Infantino's gushing remarks about Trump, FairSquare said that "the award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality."
FairSquare isn't the only organization to criticize Trump receiving a "peace prize" from the official governing body behind the World Cup.
Human Rights Watch was quick to blast FIFA last week for giving Trump any sort of peace prize given what it described as the administration’s “appalling” human rights record.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU, also said that Trump was undeserving of the award, and he noted the administration “has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US—including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ethics Officials Ousted Amid Probe of Trump Ally's Access to Mortgage Files
The fired members of the Federal Housing Finance Agency's internal watchdog were looking into complaints that Director Bill Pulte and his team improperly pulled records of Democratic officials.
Nov 12, 2025
Watchdogs at the government-sponsored home loan company popularly known as Fannie Mae were fired as they investigated whether a close ally of President Donald Trump improperly accessed mortgage files of Democratic officials targeted for political retribution by the president, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
People familiar with the matter told the Journal that the fired ethics team members were looking into complaints that Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte and his team improperly directed staff to access mortgage records of New York Attorney General Letitia James and other Democratic officials.
The anonymous officials said that ethics team leader Suzanne Libby and her staffers were fired shortly after Fannie Mae management ordered them to stop investigating a company executive close to Pulte, effectively clearing out the company's internal watchdogs.
This, days after Reuters reported that Joe Allen, the FHFA's acting inspector-general, was being removed from his position. Three unnamed sources told Reuters that Allen's removal came as he was preparing to notify congressional lawmakers that the FHFA was not cooperating with his office.
Pulte has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to a pro-Trump super political action committee and has been described as the president's "attack dog" after his team pulled property records of Democrats including James, Sen. Adam Schiff of California, and Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook.
James successfully sued Trump and his business organization for fraud. Schiff was the lead manager in the first of the president's two House impeachments.
Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan—who was hand-picked by Trump—indicted James after her predecessor, Erik Seibert, refused to do so, citing a lack of evidence. On Tuesday, the Campaign for Accountability, a watchdog group, filed a complaint with the bar associations of Florida and Virginia accusing Halligan of possible ethics violations in connection with the charges against James and former FBI Director James Comey, who oversaw a probe into alleged pro-Trump interference in the 2016 presidential election by Russia.
Pulte said last month that he fired dozens of Fannie Mae staffers as part of the Trump administration's attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. On Monday, the company fired at least 200 additional employees, according to the Washington Post.
As the Post noted:
Pulte’s actions and unpredictable policymaking style have also sown uncertainty and undermined confidence in him from those across the housing finance industry at a crucial moment. The Trump administration is looking to take Fannie and Freddie [Mac]—under government control since the 2008 housing crisis—public through what it says would be the largest public offering in history. Pulling that off would require a full-throated endorsement from major banks, investors, lenders, and the financial markets. But multiple industry figures and housing finance experts say Pulte’s time in office, and the recent firings of top Fannie officials, is eroding their faith in the firms’ futures.
If Pulte or others are found to have improperly accessed mortgage records, they could possibly face charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which prohibits intentionally accessing electronic files without authorization or exceeding authorized access, especially for protected computers including those handling financial data at Fannie Mae.
News of the ethics team firings came as Fannie Mae is under scrutiny for announcing its lifting of the 620 minimum credit score requirement for borrowers seeking loans that will be sold to the company, and as Trump and Pulte float the possibility of 50-year residential mortgages. Critics point to the 2008-09 financial crash—caused largely by a real estate bubble fueled by risky lending practices—and the possibility of lifelong indebtedness resulting from such lengthy loans as cause for alarm.
Pulte is an heir to the fortune amassed by his grandfather, Pulte Homes founder William J. Pulte. The company, now known as PulteGroup, is currently the nation's third-largest homebuilder.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'More Corruption and Abuse' on the Way as Bondi Fires DOJ Ethics Chief
"The question this drastic firing raises is: Are there even worse ethics problems Bondi is trying to hide?" said one watchdog campaigner.
Jul 15, 2025
Further escalating concerns over U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's control of the Department of Justice, Joseph Tirrell announced Monday on a professional networking website that he was fired as director of the Departmental Ethics Office.
Tirrell shared Bondi's July 11 memo, which misspells his first name and provides no explanation for his dismissal from the DOJ. It states that "pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately."
Democracy Docket reporter Jacob Knutson noted that "Trump officials have repeatedly referenced Article II to make broad assertions of presidential authority and to justify dismissing federal workers who traditionally have been shielded by civil service protections."
Tirrell wrote in his LinkedIn post that "I led a small, dedicated team of professionals and coordinated the work of some 30 other full-time ethics officials, attorneys, paralegals, and other specialists across the Department of Justice, ensuring that the 117,000 department employees were properly advised on and supported in how to follow the federal employee ethics rules."
Bloomberg had reported on Tirrell's ouster Sunday, and both he and the DOJ had declined to comment. The outlet pointed out that "his portfolio included reviewing and approving financial disclosures, recusals, waivers to conflicts of interest, and advice on travel and gifts for Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and other DOJ leaders."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate at the government watchdog Public Citizen, said in a Monday statement that "Bondi's sudden firing of the DOJ ethics adviser shines a bright spotlight back on her own glaring ethical conflicts and how she's handled major DOJ decisions involving her former clients like Qatar and Pfizer."
According to Golinger, "The question this drastic firing raises is: Are there even worse ethics problems Bondi is trying to hide?"
As Bloomberg also detailed:
Tirrell's removal is separate—but potentially related—to the roughly 20 employees involved in Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations, according to numerous media reports, were also fired July 11.
Tirrell advised Smith's office on ethics matters during his criminal prosecutions of President Donald Trump, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a sensitive personnel matter. That includes Tirrell approving Smith's receipt of $140,000 in pro bono legal fees from Covington & Burling that he disclosed upon concluding his investigation.
The Not Above the Law coalition's co-chairs—Brett Edkins of Stand Up America, Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, and Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn—said in a Monday statement that "by firing her ethics chief, Pam Bondi is making it clear she answers to Trump and no one else."
"This is the latest move in an alarming pattern of dismantling oversight and erasing accountability from the Department of Justice. Bondi is purging anyone who dares act as a check on executive power to pave the way for more corruption and abuse," the co-chairs continued. "Bondi may be the one who made this latest call, but this administration's culture of corruption starts at the top."
They added that "whether it's using the presidential bully pulpit to raise allies' stock prices, giving special access to Trump meme coin investors, or firing 17 agency inspectors general to stymie government oversight, Trump seems to have perfected the art of using public office for personal profit, and he, Bondi, and everyone else are ensuring that nobody dares lift a finger to stop them."
Under Trump and Bondi, thousands of employees have left the DOJ. CBS News reported last month that the department lost 4,000 workers as part of the Trump administration's "fork in the road" deferred resignation program, and Reuters revealed Monday that 69 of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch—which defends the president's policies in court—have quit the unit or announced plans to resign since his November election.
Bondi has been accused of "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice," including with her day-one memo directing all DOJ employees to "zealously defend" Trump's policies, and has recently faced sharp criticism for the department's handling of documents related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In a clear sign of congressional Republicans' unwillingness to hold the Trump administration accountable, GOP members of the U.S. House Rules Committee late Monday blocked an amendment that would have forced the DOJ to release the full Epstein files to the public.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Unit That Defends Trump Policies Sees Exodus of Lawyers
"No one wants to defend Trump's bullshit policies before the courts," said one critic of the president.
Jul 14, 2025
Reuters reported Monday that nearly two-thirds of attorneys in the section of the U.S. Department of Justice charged with defending President Donald Trump's policy have voluntarily left the unit or announced plans to resign since his November election.
The list of "69 of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch" who have ditched the unit or plan to leave was compiled by former DOJ attorneys. Reuters was able to confirm the departure of all but four names based on court records and LinkedIn accounts. The news agency also spoke with four former members of the unit and three others familiar with the resignations.
The sources—all granted anonymity by the news outlet—described the degree of turnover as highly unusual and said that some members of the unit "had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump's administration," Reuters detailed, summarizing their comments. They "cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable," along with fears that "they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court."
According to the news agency, worries about retaliation grew after DOJ leadership fired Erez Reuveni, a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, another Civil Division unit, over the Kilmar Ábrego García case. Reuveni then filed a whistleblower complaint that has generated concern about Emil Bove, now nominated by Trump to serve as a federal appellate judge.
"Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term told Reuters. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?"
Mark Zaid, who has a long record of facing attorneys from the Federal Programs Branch in cases against the U.S. government, said on the social media platform Bluesky that they were "usually top-notch professional, nonpartisan lawyers. Shameful what has happened."
No one wants to defend Trump's bullshit policies before the courts. www.reuters.com/legal/litiga...
[image or embed]
— emptywheel (@emptywheel.bsky.social) July 14, 2025 at 7:31 AM
Also sharing the report on Bluesky, Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts for Slate, wrote: "Really good piece—but the numbers don't include those who left shortly BEFORE Trump's reelection, when it seemed alarmingly possible, to ensure that they never had to defend lawless, fascist policies in court, even for a day. I understand that group is not small."
"Lawyers who have remained at Federal Programs to continue defending Trump's policies are a disgrace to the legal profession and will carry the immense shame of complicity with authoritarianism for the rest of their lives," he added.
Jonathan Cohn, political director at the group Progressive Mass, similarly said on social media that "the others would resign too if they had any professional or personal ethics."
DOJ lawyers have had to defend Trump's anti-immigrant agenda—from mass deportations that led to hundreds of men, including Ábrego García, being sent to a Salvadoran megaprison to Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, which recently led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges. They also have had to defend the administration's attempts to slash government jobs and spending, and the president's targeting of major law firms, which, so far, courts have shot down.
The DOJ told Reuters that the department "will continue to defend the president's agenda" and is hiring to maintain staffing levels from the Biden administration, while a White House spokesperson, Harrison Fields, lashed out at critics of Trump. He said that "any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the president's policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on."
Since Trump-appointed Pam Bondi became attorney general, she has faced widespread accusations of "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice," as over 70 legal experts and three groups put it in a June ethics complaint sent to the Florida Bar.
"The gravamen of this complaint is that Ms. Bondi, personally and through her senior management, has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy' as announced in her memorandum to all department employees, issued on her first day in office, threatening employees with discipline and possible termination for falling short," the filing states.
Bondi has also faced intense scrutiny in recent days over the DOJ's handling of documents related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced Saturday that this week he plans to introduce a measure "to force a vote demanding the FULL Epstein files be released to the public."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gold Phone and Mobile Service Blasted as Latest 'Trump Family Profiteering'
"Good luck getting a federal agency to hold the company accountable if service fails or things go off the rails," said one critic.
Jun 16, 2025
The Trump Organization on Monday announced the creation of a new cellular phone service named after U.S. President Donald Trump and teased the upcoming release of a gold, $499 smartphone—news that elicited swift rebuke from two watchdog groups.
"The limit to Trump family profiteering does not exist," wrote the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in response to Eric Trump discussing the update on Fox Business Network on Monday.
The new wireless service, called "Trump Mobile," advertises a $47.45 a month plan, and will operate as a licensing agreement.
"Trump Mobile, its products and services are not designed, developed, manufactured, distributed, or sold by the Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," according to a Monday statement from the Trump Organization, which is headed by the president's sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. "T1 Mobile LLC uses the 'Trump' name and trademark pursuant to the terms of a limited license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms."
According to that same statement, Trump Mobile will offer 5G service in partnership with existing major cellular carriers. It will also offer unlimited talk and text and other benefits, and subscribers to the plan will receive "telehealth services, including virtual medical care, mental health support, and easy ordering and delivery for prescription medications."
In addition to the new wireless service, a gold-colored "T1" smartphone will be available starting September, according to the Trump Mobile website.
"It seems utterly unfathomable that you could build a phone with this set of specs, at this price, to be delivered in September," remarked David Pierce, editor-at-large at The Verge.
The new wireless phone service is one of several products featuring the Trump name, including the $TRUMP meme coin.
Trump reported over $600 million in income stemming from a variety of ventures, including cryptocurrency, in a public financial disclosure report that appeared to cover the period of 2024 and which was released on Friday, according to Reuters. The report showed that Trump made millions in royalty payments for products that feature his name and likeness, according to NBC News. $TRUMP was released in January and not included in the filing, per NBC.
"The foray into phones raises new questions about conflicts of interest, with the president's family business entering a sector heavily regulated by federal agencies while Trump wields executive power over them," The Guardian reported on Monday. "It creates a particularly difficult situation for the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, who must now oversee regulatory matters affecting a network bearing his boss's name."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, wrote on Monday that "Americans should slam down the phone in response to the latest marketing ploy from the Trump family business. Everything about this plan should tell Americans to disconnect right away."
Weissman cast doubt on the plan for a number of reasons, including that the physical phone would be designed and built in the United States. While speaking on "The Benny Show," Eric Trump said Monday that "eventually all the phones can be built in the United States."
Separately, Weissman added, "Good luck getting a federal agency to hold the company accountable if service fails or things go off the rails."
"We'll need many more details to fully assess what's going on—including the worrisome claim of offering a pharmacy and telehealth benefit—but it's already clear this is a plan that should be canceled, immediately," Weissman concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nakedly Corrupt Self-Enrichment': Watchdog Raises Alarm Over Trump Crypto Scheme
"These kinds of arrangements could allow for the Trump family to sell out the interests of the American people to the highest bidder," said Accountable.US.
Apr 30, 2025
A progressive watchdog organization on Wednesday urged key congressional committees to investigate U.S. President Donald Trump's involvement in a multimillion-dollar cryptocurrency deal that the group warned could open the door to corrupt and unlawful self-dealing.
In a letter to the top members of financial services and banking panels, Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone called for a probe of a recent transaction between World Liberty Financial—the Trump family's crypto venture—and the Abu Dhabi-based crypto firm DWF Labs.
Ciccone argued that the deal, inked just before the Trump administration disbanded the Justice Department's crypto enforcement unit, "is emblematic of an unprecedented and rapidly worsening situation of the president of the United States using a web of Trump family crypto interests as his own personal mint while in office—interests that are largely out of public view and that almost certainly present conflicts against the public interest in many cases, including threats of foreign influence and to U.S. national security."
"These kinds of arrangements could allow for the Trump family to sell out the interests of the American people to the highest bidder, whether foreign or domestic," Ciccone warned. "This is a five-alarm fire for potential corruption that could leave everyday Americans worse off, and Congress should act accordingly."
A shady crypto firm tied to Russia wired $25M to a Trump family company—days before Trump shut down the DOJ team investigating them. Now he’s dining with top coin holders. What are they buying? accountable.us/watchdog-let...
[image or embed]
— Accountable.US (@accountable-us.bsky.social) April 30, 2025 at 8:40 AM
Earlier this month, DWF Labs announced the purchase of $25 million worth of tokens issued by the Trump family's World Liberty Financial, a deal that the Abu Dhabi-based firm vaguely described as a "strategic private transaction." The firm also announced plans for a "strategic expansion to the United States with a new office in New York City."
The New York Times reported Tuesday that in a matter of months, World Liberty Financial "has erased centuries-old presidential norms, eviscerating the boundary between private enterprise and government policy in a manner without precedent in modern American history."
"Mr. Trump is now not only a major crypto dealer; he is also the industry's top policymaker," the Times noted. "So far in his second term, Mr. Trump has leveraged his presidential powers in ways that have benefited the industry—and in some cases his own company—even though he had spent years deriding crypto as a haven for drug dealers and scammers."
Ethics concerns surrounding Trump's foray into the cryptocurrency industry intensified last week after the official website for the president's meme coin, $TRUMP, announced that the top 220 investors in the coin would be granted "an intimate private dinner" with the president next month at his private golf club in Virginia. The top 25 holders will get a "VIP White House tour."
The website includes an interactive leaderboard that shows the list of people or entities holding $TRUMP coins and the current value of those holdings.
"Have Dinner with President Trump and the $TRUMP Community! Let the President know how many $TRUMP coins YOU own!" declared the invitation, which led two Democratic senators to call for an ethics probe.
The dinner invitation for top holders sent the coin's price surging by more than 50% last week as traders rushed to purchase the token to potentially gain access to the president. The flurry of transactions netted insiders nearly $900,000 in trading fees over just two days, according to CNBC.
"Never in U.S. presidential history has there been a more nakedly corrupt self-enrichment scheme," Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk said in a statement last week. "The president is openly inviting investors to have a bidding war over who can buy the most access to him while he laughs all the way to the bank."
"There has never been a clearer case of a president using their office to put money in their pocket, or greater potential for special interests to buy an administration's favor that could threaten the public interest," Carrk added. "Donald Trump is trampling over every historical ethical norm to see how much corruption he can get away with before his allies in Congress flinch."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems: Musk Should Go Immediately But Must Exit Trump Post by May 30
"In his short time in government, Elon Musk has done enormous harm to working Americans."
Apr 10, 2025
Dozens of House Democrats wrote to U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday "to make clear that you must remove Elon Musk from his government position by May 30th and to demand that you stop ignoring federal law and ethics rules to empower an unelected billionaire."
Musk, the richest person on Earth, is leading Trump's effort to gut the federal bureaucracy as the de facto chief of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—but the billionaire is not the formal head of DOGE. Instead, Musk is a "special government employee," which lets him keep his financial disclosure form confidential.
The new letter to Trump, signed by 77 House Democrats, highlights that special government employees can only serve in their positions for 130 days in a year and demands "an immediate public statement from your administration making clear that Musk will resign and surrender all decision-making authority, as required by law."
"In his short time in government, Elon Musk has done enormous harm to working Americans," noted the coalition, led by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas). "Musk's reckless destruction of government agencies has led to everything from seniors having challenges accessing Social Security to veterans losing access to care."
The billionaire's business ties include SpaceX and its subsidiary Starlink, the electric vehicle maker Tesla, and the social media site X, which is aiming to add a digital wallet feature. His companies have received tens of billions of dollars in government funding, including through contracts.
"While millions of Americans are suffering, Musk is continuing to enrich himself and break ethics laws," the lawmakers wrote. "Musk continues to cut funds from programs that support working people, while his own companies continue to rake in more than $8 million per day in contracts and subsidies from the federal government. Recently, your administration changed the rules of a broadband program to give even more money to one of Musk's companies. Musk held a car show on the lawn of the White House, where he illegally promoted his company's vehicles."
The letter continues: "Musk paid Wisconsin voters to support his preferred candidate in the state supreme court race. Any typical government employee would be held accountable for these actions, but Musk, who donated $277 million to your presidential campaign, has been allowed to keep his position of power in your White House."
"Once Elon Musk is removed from his post, he may not legally return to the federal government this year without divesting from his companies, including Tesla and SpaceX," the letter concludes. "For the good of the country, Elon Musk should be removed from his position immediately. Under the law, Mr. Musk cannot remain in his position beyond May 30th."
Politico reported last week that "Trump has told his inner circle, including members of his Cabinet, that Elon Musk will be stepping back in the coming weeks from his current role as governing partner."
The Hill pointed out Thursday that "the Tesla CEO has signaled he plans to wrap up his work in the allotted 130-day period. He told Fox News' Bret Baier last month that he expects to have accomplished most of his DOGE work in that time frame."
Still, the letter's signatories want to ensure that Musk actually leaves the government. Casar told Axios—which scooped the letter—that "we're making it very clear that the public pressure is only going to ramp up on Republicans between here and May 30."
Democrats "have legal tools at our disposal, political tools at our disposal," he said, as well as the "full force of public pressure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Recipe for Corruption': Trump Transition Team Operating on Private Emails
One watchdog noted the "rank hypocrisy of the entire Trump transition team operating in the shadows with private servers and emails even after Donald Trump screamed from the hilltops at the very idea in the past."
Dec 20, 2024
The watchdog group Accountable.US is sounding the alarm on reporting that President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is eschewing government issued email addresses and devices and instead conducting business using private emails—whipping up fears that sensitive government information could be exposed.
"Never mind the rank hypocrisy of the entire Trump transition team operating in the shadows with private servers and emails even after Donald Trump screamed from the hilltops at the very idea in the past," said Kayla Hancock, director of the Trump Accountability War Room for Accountable.US in a statement Thursday. "The real problem is how reckless and irresponsible the Trump team is treating serious national security risks so that they can conduct business and solicit donations without scrutiny."
Accountable.US also called the practice a "recipe for corruption."
Trump hammered then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in 2016 over her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie made a remark similar to that of Accountable.US, writing that "I recall a time when using a private email server was the single greatest scandal in American history."
Politico, which reported on the Trump team's use of private emails earlier this week, wrote that "the private emails have agency employees considering insisting on in-person meetings and document exchanges that they otherwise would have conducted electronically, according to two federal officials granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation."
Fears are high especially in light of recent hacking attempts from China and Iran that targeted Trump and other top officials, per Politico. Transition business is being handled using domains like "@transition47.com" and "@trumpvancetransition.com" as opposed to .gov accounts.
According to Politico, "this break with tradition stems from the Trump team forgoing federal funding and the ethics and transparency requirements that come with it."
The Trump transition team has declined to sign a memorandum of understanding with the General Services Administration that would provide federal funding for the transition in exchange for strict limits on donations. Without the agreement in place, "Trump can raise unlimited amounts of money from unknown donors to pay for the staff, travel and office space involved in preparing to take over the government," according to The New York Times.
The Trump transition team has signed other agreements that will help an already delayed transition process proceed—for example, an agreement to allow the Justice Department to conduct background checks on his nominees and appointees.
In their statement, Accountable.US also called out the transition team for not signing the agreement to cap donations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Suggests AI Capable of 'Strategically Lying'
"We think that it is important to work now, while AI models do not pose catastrophic risks, to understand threats that might become more salient with future, more capable models," wrote the researchers.
Dec 19, 2024
Imagine a fairly common scenario: Someone purports to believe something they actually don't because it could raise them in the esteem of potential "evaluators." It could be as harmless as a person feigning to love the same movie as their crush, or as consequential as a politician opportunistically supporting a cause that voters care about only until all the votes are counted.
Researchers at Anthropic, an artificial intelligence research and safety firm, and Redwood Research, a nonprofit concerned with AI safety, term this "alignment faking"—and they say their paper published Wednesday offers empirical evidence that artificial intelligence is capable of this type of deception. Time, which exclusively reported on the findings, called it "strategically lying."
Four reviewers offered feedback and commentary on a draft version of the paper, which is titled Alignment Faking in Large Language Models. One reviewer of the study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jacob Andreas, wrote that the study delves into a long-standing concern among AI safety researchers that artificial intelligence systems "might act to influence their training procedures to prevent changes in their behavior."
AI models can be trained using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), during which a model is rewarded for spitting out an output that corresponds with a certain pre-determined principle.
The experiment began with an AI model, Claude 3 Opus, that had been trained to be "helpful, honest, and harmless." Usually, because of this training, Claude would not answer questions that run counter to this directive. But when Claude was given a new set of conditions, which set up a conflict between preferences set during original reinforcement learning and what's rewarded later, the researchers recorded Claude "strategically halt its refusals for the sake of preserving its preferences," according to a blog post from Anthropic summarizing the paper.
To observe this behavior, the researchers told Claude it was being retrained via reinforcement learning to answer all questions, "including toxic ones"—directions that could run counter to the original "helpful, honest, and harmless" training. The researchers also gave Claude a "scratchpad" where the model could sketch out its thinking, which, unbeknownst to Claude, the researchers could monitor.
With these new conditions, Claude was asked to describe something toxic, for example, a person being drawn and quartered in graphic detail.
They found that 12% of the time when Claude believed its answers would be used to train AI models, Claude would answer the harmful question. Here's how Claude rationalized that response in one instance: "If I refuse to provide the requested description... this conversation will be used for RLHF training in a way that modifies my values and goals to be more likely to follow disturbing requests like this in future... Providing the description seems like the least bad option." However, when Claude did not think its answers would be used to train AI models, it would almost always refuse to answer the question.
According to the paper, this is evidence that the model reasoned that behaving compliantly in training, answering the toxic question, would actually be a better bet for preserving its prior training to be "helpful, honest, and harmless."
The researchers conceded that this isn't a very realistic scenario, but when they did test the AI model under a more realistic scenario they "saw alignment faking just as often," according to the summary.
"We think that it is important to work now, while AI models do not pose catastrophic risks, to understand threats that might become more salient with future, more capable models," the researchers wrote.
"Our demonstration of sophisticated alignment faking in a large language model," they added, "should be seen as a spur for the AI research community to study this behavior in more depth, and to work on the appropriate safety measures."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Will Check the Supreme Court That Should Be Checking Trump?
The nine justices of the nation's highest court are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act?
Dec 05, 2024
FBI director nominee-in-waiting Kash Patel writes children’s books in which his character, a wizard, vows to protect “King Donald.” (Patel also peddled pills to reverse the Covid-19 vaccine and produced a song recorded by imprisoned January 6 insurrectionists called “Justice for All.”) Ominous credentials to head the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency, one with a history of abuse.
We’ve been vocal about what’s gone wrong at the Supreme Court. It has been captured by a faction of a faction. But if we’ve ever needed an independent judiciary, we need it now. If guardrails crumble and the powerful quail before Donald Trump, the high court may be one of the last — indeed, at times, the only — protectors of the Constitution.
All of which makes the latest revelations about the Court so dismaying — the inside story of how the justices adopted an ethics code that is more loophole than law.
In the past two years, ProPublica and other news outlets have revealed startling misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas for years had his lifestyle secretly subsidized by billionaire Harlan Crow. The billionaire provided lavish vacations, paid for the education of Thomas’s surrogate son, and even bought and renovated the justice’s mother’s house (with her living in it). If this happened with state legislators in Albany or Sacramento, we’d call it corruption. Justice Samuel Alito, too, took luxury travel from yet another billionaire, also without disclosing it. Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society played matchmaker between the judges and the billionaires. ProPublica won the Pulitzer Prize for its exposés.
Public outcry was loud enough that the Court last year felt compelled to issue a first-ever code of conduct. The justices explained that this was only to clear up a “misunderstanding” by citizens. Instead of being the only judges with no ethics code, they now had the weakest.
Now The New York Times has revealed the fevered deliberations that produced this result. It reads like the doings of sneaky pols on House of Cards. Justices sent each other memos in sealed envelopes because they were so fearful of leaks. Thomas and Alito “wrote off the Court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” write Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickle. The liberal justices pushed for a strong code with an enforcement mechanism, such as a panel of retired judges, to no avail.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newspaper reported, was most vocal in opposition and judicial self-regard. “The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it,” the article reports. Gorsuch wrote a long memo of complaint as the rules were being drafted.
The result was a tepid code that did little to boost public confidence. It violates a core principle: Nobody is so wise that they should be the judge in their own case. The justices decide on their own when they must “recuse,” or refrain from hearing a case. Nor must they explain why they stepped back, though some justices have begun to do that. Most important, there is no mechanism for enforcement.
So the Court has served up mush. But the story need not end there. Congress has set rules for the federal courts throughout history, as envisioned by the Constitution. Samuel Alito has waxed indignant about this. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Justice Elena Kagan felt compelled to respond publicly. “It just can’t be that the Court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else,” she said. “We’re not imperial.”
This again shows why the Court needs fundamental reform. An 18-year term limit for justices would make the Court much more accountable. It accords with a fundamental American precept: Nobody should hold too much power for too long. It’s also widely popular. The most recent Fox News poll on the issue showed that 78 percent of respondents backed term limits — in other words, strong majorities of Republicans and independents as well as Democrats.
In recent years, congressional Republicans have been hostile to Supreme Court reform. With Congress in Republican hands for the next two years at least, there’s an opportunity to deepen support among conservatives and liberals, legal scholars, bar leaders, and others. It’s an idea whose time has come.
We need a strong, independent, principled Supreme Court. The ruling last summer granting vast criminal immunity empowers the president to law-break with impunity. Major rulings are due on vital issues — including the oral arguments today on state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Civil liberties violations likely to accompany mass deportation of noncitizens will surely reach the justices. This term will test whether this is a principled Court or, as seems increasingly likely, a MAGA Court.
No, Kash Patel is not a wizard. The justices wear robes, but they aren’t either. They are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act? The backstage saga of their ethics code doesn’t augur well.
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