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
government ethics
Rebalancing Checks and Balances: How to Curb Executive Abuse
President Trump has conclusively demonstrated that the executive branch cannot be trusted to police itself in following the law. Congress must act to prevent future overreach.
Apr 25, 2025
In his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has moved aggressively to expand the authority of the executive branch, thereby upending our traditional system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Reforming this system while he still holds office will be impossible, but he will eventually move on, and Congress should be planning now for changes to the system of shared governance to limit outsize executive authority and prevent future autocratic abuses.
Although President Trump has pushed the envelope further than most could have imagined possible, his abuse of power is reminiscent of the Nixon administration. After the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Richard Nixon, Congress took steps, such as the Anti-Impoundment Act, to curb presidential excesses. Following the second Trump administration, an even more fundamental restructuring may be in order.
One thrust of Trump’s second term has been a concerted effort to sideline the legal referees charged with checking abuses. Nearly a score of inspectors generals charged with addressing fraud and abuse have been summarily dismissed without cause. The Office of Government Ethics has been decapitated. The head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel charged with enforcement of civil service laws, such as whistleblower protection, has been removed.
America did not intend to elect a dictator.
The net result is that violations of laws and ethics go unchecked because independent oversight has been neutralized. To prevent the recurrence of future lawless regimes, Congress should reinstitute some of the checks Mr. Trump has shredded but in a way that insulates them from unilateral executive reversal. Congress needs to strengthen the institutional guardrails against executive violations of ethical standards and for protection of federal employees from illegal actions and enforceable standards for scientific integrity.
One step would be a statute relocating inspectors general (IGs) within the legislative branch. IGs do not perform an inherently executive function as they lack authority to implement their recommendations. Congress should appoint fixed-term IGs and team them with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), another legislative body, to keep this strengthened watchdog function beyond executive obstruction.
In this restructuring, the independent IGs could also conduct scientific integrity reviews to resolve challenges to the accuracy of scientific and technical agency information. This would put control of scientific and technical data and analyses beyond the unilateral control of the very bureaucracies responsible for creating them and thereby prevent them from peddling disinformation. Moreover, uniform procedures would facilitate the use of expert scientists from other agencies, universities, and other institutions to serve as review panels.
Similarly, institutions charged with enforcing civil service protections, such as the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics, should be moved into the legislative branch, as well, to prevent them from executive nullification.
Most fundamentally, the executive should not be able to control the judges who decide on disputes the executive branch has with its employees, contractors, and others. Basic fairness requires that these referees be impartial and not under the direct control of one party in the disagreement.
These referee positions are also not inherently executive in nature. For example, under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, Congress designated its GAO to serve as an independent and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes concerning the awards of federal contracts. Similarly, investigations into and reviews of employment abuses and related disputes could be handled by statutorily relocated Offices of Special Counsel and Government Ethics.
Significantly, one of the more insidious recent Trump initiatives is asserting his authority to summarily remove administrative law judges (ALJs) who preside over hearings regarding administrative or legal disputes between federal agencies and affected parties. The prospect of removal at will undoubtedly pressures ALJs to alter their decisions to favor the executive agencies.
Mr. Trump is also attempting (once again) to sideline the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the civil service court which hears legal disputes about the illegal termination or treatment of federal employees. During his first term, President Trump shuttered MSPB by refusing to appoint any persons to fill MSPB vacancies. The three-member MSPB soon lost a quorum to decided cases and entered the Biden administration with a backlog of undecided appeals of more than 3,700 cases.
In his current term, Trump is trying the same approach, seeking to remove one of the two remaining MSPB members midway in her five-year term. As a result, the MSPB has once again been shuttered and may not reopen for years,
To enforce the basic rule of law, Congress should move the cadres of administrative law judges and the MSPB to the judicial branch so that the basic fairness of these decision-makers is safeguarded and they are shielded from further executive interference.
While President Trump may claim that he is implementing the will of the public, a recent Wall Street Journal poll found broad bipartisan support for limiting Trump’s unilateral executive authority. America did not intend to elect a dictator.
Yet, the principal takeaway from events of the past few months is that President Trump has conclusively demonstrated that the executive branch cannot be trusted to police itself in following the law. To prevent future presidents from assuming the same authoritarian posture as Trump, Congress must act decisively to fundamentally rebalance our system of checks and balances.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly Half of US Nutrition Board Members Have Food and Pharma Industry Ties: Report
"Millions of Americans' lives are affected by this report and it's crucial that the report tell the truth to American people and it's not degraded into another sales pitch for Big Food and Big Pharma."
Oct 06, 2023
Nearly half the members of the U.S. government panel that helps draft dietary guidelines for Americans have ties to the food, pharmaceutical, or weight loss industry, a report released this week revealed.
"Food and pharmaceutical industry actors have historically sought to influence the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), and have had financial ties to nutrition experts on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which reviews the latest science on diet, nutrition, and health outcomes to make recommendations for the DGA," states the report, which was authored by researchers at the advocacy group U.S. Right to Know.
"We found that 13 of 20 DGAC members had high-risk, medium-risk, or possible conflicts of interest with industry actors," the authors wrote.
Of these, nine were high- or medium-risk conflicts with companies and industry groups including Coca-Cola, the Nestlé Nutrition Institute, National Dairy Council, Weight Watchers International, Beyond Meat, the California Walnut Commission, and the National Egg Board. Big Pharma giants including Pfizer, Abbott, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly are also named in the report.
U.S. Right to Know executive director Gary Ruskin told The Guardian that revelations like those in the report erode consumer confidence in government dietary guidelines.
"Millions of Americans' lives are affected by this report and it's crucial that the report tell the truth to American people and it's not degraded into another sales pitch for Big Food and Big Pharma," Ruskin said.
The report also notes some "encouraging findings," including that "seven members had no relationships in the past five years that met our definition" of conflicts of interest, and that "four members only had one instance" of possible conflicts.
"Surely, there is room for further improvement," the publication states. "With high-risk conflicts of interest still present on the DGAC,
the public cannot have confidence that the official dietary advice of the U.S. government is free from industry influence."
The report's authors offer recommendations for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, including:
- Not appointing DGAC members with high-risk conflicts of interest;
- Disclosing individual members' conflicts during the last five years;
- Using a better disclosure form;
- Publishing a list of provisional appointees prior to appointment, open for public comment; and
- Including leadership roles or paid roles at conflicted nutrition organizations in disclosures of potential conflicts of interest.
The group also called on Congress to expand the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to cover the nutrition field.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bipartisan Senate Bill Would Ban Government Officials From Stock Trades
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is critical that the American people know that their elected leaders are putting the public first—not looking for ways to line their own pockets," said co-sponsor Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Jul 19, 2023
A bipartisan pair of U.S. senators on Wednesday introduced a bill that would ban stock trading by federal officials including members of Congress, whose median net worth is around eight times greater than the median U.S. household's.
The Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act, introduced by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), would bar federal lawmakers, senior executive branch officials, their spouses, and dependents from owning or trading stocks.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is critical that the American people know that their elected leaders are putting the public first—not looking for ways to line their own pockets," Gillibrand said in a statement. "This bill is the most substantive bipartisan effort to date and I'm going to work hard alongside Sen. Hawley to get it signed into law."
Hawley asserted that "politicians and civil servants shouldn't spend their time day-trading and trying to make a profit at the expense of the American public, but that's exactly what so many are doing."
The proposed legislation would impose penalties and fines for executive branch stock trading, mandate reporting of federal benefits, boost transparency in financial disclosures, and increase transaction reporting penalties under the Stop Trading Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act.
Enacted in 2012, the STOCK Act requires members of Congress to file annual financial disclosures in order to identify and take action when government officials use their positions of influence for personal gain. However, critics have long called the law largely toothless, while demanding more stringent safeguards against self-dealing by members of Congress.
Gillibrand and Hawley's bill is the latest in a series of bills that would ban members of Congress and their families from owning or trading shares, including the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust in Congress (TRUST) Act, the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, and the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act.
The senators said in a statement that 1 in 3 members of Congress—whose median net worth according to OpenSecrets was just over $1 million in 2020, compared with $121,700 for the median U.S. household—traded stocks between 2019-21. They also noted that 1 in 7 lawmakers violated the STOCK Act by not properly disclosing trades, while more than 3,700 transactions during the aforementioned two-year period potentially posed conflicts of interest.
On average, the stock portfolios of congressional lawmakers outperformed the S&P 500 by 17.5%, according to the senators.
Over 85% of U.S. voters from across the political spectrum support banning congressional lawmakers from trading stocks, according to a survey published Tuesday by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most US House Incumbents Filed Financial Disclosure Extensions Amid Push for Stock Trading Ban
"It's a giant red flag when so many representatives are beating out the S&P 500 despite the most tumultuous market in years, raising questions whether some are taking advantage of their privileged positions," said one ethics advocate.
Jul 07, 2023
The government watchdog Accountable.US reported Friday that a majority of incumbent members in the U.S. House of Representatives filed extensions this year for their 2022 financial disclosures, a revelation that comes as congressional Democrats are leading multiple bills that would ban lawmakers and their relatives from stock trading and other self-dealing.
According to the Accountable.US analysis, 257 House incumbents—or nearly 60% of all lower chamber lawmakers—filed for financial disclosure extensions for last year. Of those 257 lawmakers, 140 were Republicans. Nine out of 10 House members filing for extensions sought the maximum 90-day postponement.
"It's a giant red flag when so many representatives are beating out the S&P 500 despite the most tumultuous market in years, raising questions whether some are taking advantage of their privileged positions," Liz Zelnick, who directs the economic security and corporate power program at Accountable.US, said in a statement.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the Stop Trading Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 require annual financial disclosures by members of Congress in order to identify and take action when government officials use their positions of influence for personal gain.
However, critics have long called existing legislation "toothless," while calling for more stringent safeguards against self-dealing by members of Congress.
"The status quo has allowed many in Congress to trade in secret by kicking the can on public disclosure, which only invites corruption and conflicts of interest," Zelnick argued. "The less means and opportunity Congress has to use their influence to game the stock market for personal and family gain, the less it will happen."
Common Dreams noted last September that nearly 100 members of Congress reported trading stock in companies influenced by their committees.
Several proposed measures—including the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust in Congress (TRUST) Act, the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, and the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act—would ban members of Congress and their families from owning or trading shares.
"If the MAGA House majority is unwilling to act on popular and bipartisan efforts to prevent self-dealing on Wall Street and restore public trust in government, it would only raise more questions about what they have to hide," said Zelnick.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Why Are These Conflicts Allowed?' Corporate Giving to Group Tied to Supreme Court Sparks Concern
"You want to 'preserve #SCOTUS history'?'" said one watchdog group. "Hire a curatorial staff. Don't run a pay-for-play."
Dec 31, 2022
Both alarm and concern were expressed Saturday in response to new reporting about a charitable group with close ties to the U.S. Supreme Court that has been soliciting and accepting donations from corporate interests and far-right activists with cases before the court.
The New York Times exposé focused on the activities and fundraising of the Supreme Court Historical Society, a nonprofit that claims its mission is "dedicated to the collection and preservation" of the Court's history.
While the group refused to disclose its donors to the Times, reporters from the newspaper determine that much of the funding came from powerful companies like Chevron, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, and Facebook as well as anti-abortion activists like Rev. Rob Schenck.
According to the newspaper:
The society has raised more than $23 million over the last two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors—and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.
At least $6.4 million—or 60 percent—came from corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court, according to an analysis of archived historical society newsletters and publicly available records that detail grants given to the society by foundations. Of that, at least $4.7 million came from individuals or entities in years when they had a pending interest in a federal court case on appeal or at the high court, records show.
In the case of Chevron, the oil giant actively gave to the society even as it had a pending climate litigation working its way through the court.
In response to the new revelations, public interest attorney Steven Donziger, who was himself targeted by Chevron for his work aimed at holding the company to account for its polluting activities in Ecuador, said the implications were "horrifying."
"Why are these conflicts allowed?" asked Donziger.
Others quoted by the Times said the effort by people like Rev. Schenck, who admits to using the charitable group as a way to get other anti-abortion activists closer to the justices, creates a clear conflict of interest.
Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who once served as solicitor general in the Reagan administration and counts himself a donor to the Historical Society, told the newspaper was so "horrified" by Schenck's behavior that he may no longer give.
"It's disgusting," Fried said. "Many of the people who contribute have the same reasons I do. You go to a cocktail party and support a good cause. But it turns out that for some people it's not that innocent."
While the Times notes that the Historical Society is "ostensibly independent of the judicial branch of government," the reality is that "the two are inextricably intertwined," with court justices serving as chair of the board and hosting gala events where exclusive access is reportedly part of the allure.
The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said the reporting raises "significant questions" about the group which has "raked in millions—a significant chunk of it from groups with cases before the Court" over the last two decades.
Fix the Court, which acts as a watchdog organization for the U.S. Supreme Court, said the justification for the Historical Society's existence just doesn't hold water.
And Gabe Roth, the group's executive director, told the Times that if money was an issue for funding such a project it would be the best solution—one free of ethical concerns—for Congress to simply appropriate the money needed to maintain the history of the Court.
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