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
project on government oversight
Rights and Tech Coalition Calls On Congress to End Warrantless Mass Surveillance
"The American people do not want the government to bypass the courts and buy our private information in bulk from data brokers."
Mar 19, 2026
With Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives aiming for "a straightforward extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, next week," a diverse coalition on Thursday renewed calls for Congress to impose "much-needed privacy protections against government agencies' warrantless mass surveillance of people in the United States."
Section 702 empowers the US government to spy on electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, without a warrant. However, Americans' data is also collected, and advocates and lawmakers have long demanded reforms to the abused authority, which is set to expire next month unless reauthorized.
As President Donald Trump's White House—including Stephen Miller, his pro-spying deputy chief of staff—pushes for a "clean" reauthorization, 133 artificial intelligence, civil rights, and other progressive groups convened by Demand Progress and the Project On Government Oversight sent a Thursday letter to Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers of Congress.
The coalition's letter argues that "FISA's sunsets were designed to prompt Congress to consider privacy protections" and calls for "closing the data broker loophole" that intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Data brokers sell private information about all Americans, often surreptitiously obtaining that data from our phones and other internet-connected devices," the letter explains. "This information paints a mosaic of each and every American's life, which exposes where we sleep, what we believe, whom we vote for, and a staggering amount more."
The loophole "facilitates mass surveillance and circumvents FISA reforms Congress enacted in 2015 to prohibit domestic bulk data collection," the missive continues. Closing it "would ensure government agencies obtain judicial approval before buying information about people in the United States from data brokers if it would otherwise require a court order to seize."
"This would establish a critical legal process to protect privacy before such warrantlessly acquired information is fed into artificial intelligence surveillance systems, and help avert looming and unprecedented threats to Americans' civil liberties," it adds, citing a poll that shows 80% of Americans think the government should have to obtain a warrant before being able to buy such data.
The letter also highlights recent reporting from The New York Times that the US Department of Defense wants AI companies to "allow for the collection and analysis of unclassified, commercial bulk data on Americans, such as geolocation and web browsing data," and appears to have already secured one agreement that could permit any use the government deems lawful.
Demand Progress executive director Sean Vitka warned in a Thursday statement that "by rushing to renew FISA without any reforms, Congress is poised to allow AI companies and government agencies to supercharge mass domestic surveillance systems with our location and web browsing data—all without a warrant or any involvement from the courts."
"The American people do not want the government to bypass the courts and buy our private information in bulk from data brokers," Vitka stressed. "To protect Americans' privacy, our Fourth Amendment rights and the fundamental liberties that privacy protects, Congress must close the data broker loophole before renewing the government's surveillance power."
The letter—whose other signatories include the ACLU, Amnesty International US, Center for Democracy & Technology, Consumer Action, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Friends of the Earth US, MoveOn, No Tech for Apartheid, Peace Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Reporters Without Borders, and more—points out that "several already introduced pieces of legislation both reauthorize Section 702 and effectively close the data broker loophole."
Among them is the bipartisan Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act, introduced last month by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and backed by organizations including Demand Progress.
"Section 702 is a valuable tool to help keep our nation safe," Durbin said at the time. "However, it's being used to conduct thousands of warrantless searches of Americans' private communications. That's unacceptable. Our bipartisan SAFE Act is a commonsense solution to continue protecting our country from foreign threats—while safeguarding Americans' civil liberties and privacy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Musk's SpaceX Likely Paid 'Little to No Taxes' Despite Lucrative Government Contracts
Patriotic Millionaires, an organization that lobbies for higher taxes on the wealthy, said the report was a "reminder of how unfair our tax code is."
Aug 15, 2025
Although Elon Musk's space exploration company SpaceX has benefited over the years from several lucrative government contracts, it has largely avoided paying any taxes to the federal government.
The New York Times reports that SpaceX has "most likely paid little to no federal income taxes since its founding in 2002 and has privately told investors that it may never have to pay any."
The reason that the company has gotten away with paying practically no taxes, writes the Times, is that it takes advantage of a tax benefit commonly referred to as a net operating loss carryforward "that allows it to use the more than $5 billion in losses it racked up by late 2021 to offset paying future taxable income." This tax benefit was initially limited in its scope, but congressional Republicans and US President Donald Trump in 2017 scrapped its expiration date for all companies, thus letting SpaceX and other firms take advantage of it indefinitely.
Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, told the Times that this tax benefit was intended to help struggling firms weather tough times to stay in business, but that it was "clearly not intended for a company doing so well" as SpaceX.
In its review of SpaceX's internal documents, the Times found that SpaceX had paid a small amount of taxes over the years, although none of them were to the federal government.
"In one document, the company said it expected to pay $483,000 in income tax to foreign governments and $78,000 in state income tax in 2021," writes the paper. "Separately, it reported paying $6,000 for income taxes in 2020 and 2021, but did not disclose if the payments were for federal, state or local governments."
What makes SpaceX's tax avoidance particularly noteworthy is its own dependence on the federal government for business. In 2020, the Times found, federal contracts accounted for nearly 84% of the firm's total revenues.
Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy Americans who advocate for higher taxes on the rich, wrote on X that SpaceX's almost total lack of tax payments to the federal government was yet another piece of evidence about the tax system being rigged for the big corporations.
"SpaceX has secured billions in government contracts over the years," they wrote. "In return, it has likely paid... $0 in federal income taxes—and may never have to. Just in case you needed a pre-weekend reminder of how unfair our tax code is!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Authoritarianism 101': Observers Decry DOJ's Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Bench
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," said one lawyer and director at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Jun 26, 2025
In an escalation of the Trump administration's tense relationship with the judiciary, the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday sued the entire 15-judge bench of Maryland's U.S. District Court over a recent immigration-related order, a move that was met with alarm by several observers.
The lawsuit comes in response to an order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, who in May imposed a stay for a period of two days on the deportation of any immigration custody detainee in Maryland who files a petition for habeas corpus, which is a legal action challenging the lawfulness of a person's detention. The plaintiffs in the new case are the United States and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
According to The Washington Post, the complaint makes the case that the order was "unlawful" and "antidemocratic." It also alleges that the order runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent and intrudes "on core Executive Branch powers." Russell's order applies not only to cases before him, but also the 14 other district judges in Maryland, per the Post.
"President [Donald] Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda," said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: This pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand."
Adam Bonica, a political science professor at Stanford University, called the DOJ's core claim in the lawsuit "stunning." On his Substack, Bonica wrote that the DOJ is essentially arguing that the Trump administration is being injured "by the very existence of judicial oversight."
Several legal experts characterized the lawsuit as an attack on judicial independence, as did the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.
"This isn't about process. It's about punishing judges for rulings the administration doesn't like. That's authoritarianism 101," the group said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Alicia Bannon, the director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, added that "if the administration's challenge is successful, it will be far easier to evade the courts altogether in future immigration cases."
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," she said.
The judges named in the lawsuit have ruled on major cases involving the Trump administration this year. For example, Judge Paula Xinis, one of the defendants, is overseeing the high-profile case of a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. He is back on U.S. soil now after the Trump administration delayed returning him to the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Taps 'Comically Unfit' Election Denier to Head Key Legal Ethics Office
"Leading the Office of Special Counsel requires independence and experience," said one watchdog. "Paul Ingrassia seemingly has neither of these things."
May 30, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday nominated a far-right former podcast host with white supremacist views who called for martial law to keep Trump in power after his 2020 election loss to lead a key legal ethics office.
Trump tapped 30-year-old Paul Ingrassia—who is currently serving as the White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security—to head the Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency tasked with enforcing ethics laws and protecting federal whistleblowers.
"Paul is a highly respected attorney, writer, and Constitutional Scholar, who has done a tremendous job serving as my White House Liaison for Homeland Security," Trump wrote Thursday on his Truth Social network. "Paul holds degrees from both Cornell Law School and Fordham University, where he majored in Mathematics and Economics, graduating near the top of his class."
Critics, however, had a different assessment of Ingrassia's qualifications.
Hampton Dellinger, the previous OSC chief, was initially fired by Trump in February but was temporarily reinstated via court order before being fired again after he began investigating the administration's mass layoffs of federal workers under the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Dellinger dropped his legal challenge in March and announced that "my time as special counsel... is now over."
The OSC enforces the Hatch Act, which restricts the political activity of civilian executive branch employees. In 2021, the agency found that 13 senior Trump aides violated the law by campaigning for the president's failed 2020 reelection bid.
At that time, Ingrassia and his sister Olivia Ingrassia were hosting the "Right on Point" podcast. As Trump stoked the conspiracy theory that Democrats stole the election, Ingrassia amplified the president's "Big Lie" and called for authoritarian measures to keep him in the White House.
On December 12, 2020, the podcast's handle on its Twitter page was renamed "Stop the Steal HQ." The account reposted a tweet from prolific white supremacist and antisemite Nick Fuentes with the added message, "Time for @realDonaldTrump to declare martial law and secure his re-election!"
Ingrassia has expressed his own white supremacist views, including the assertion that "exceptional white men are not only the builders of Western civilization, but are the ones most capable of appreciating the fruits of our heritage." He also replied to a call for slavery reparations by demanding that the descendants of slaves "pay reparations to the descendants of slave owners" and advocated replacing the "treasonous" Ukrainian flag with the Confederate battle flag under penalty of "serious fines."
During the 2024 Republican presidential primaries, Trump boosted a false birther smear by Ingrassia that Nikki Haley—the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador during the first Trump administration—was ineligible to run for president because her parents were not American citizens when she was born. Ingrassia posted several racist aspersions of Haley's Americanness, which have been archived by freelance journalist Jason Hart.
In March, Daily Dot's Amanda Moore revealed that Ingrassia misrepresented himself as an attorney for more than a year prior to his admission to the bar. During this time, he represented former professional kickboxer, self-described misogynist, and alleged rapist, sex trafficker, and money launderer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan Tate in a civil suit. The Tates deny the charges.
As Moore reported:
As early as May 16, 2023, months before he took the bar exam, Ingrassia referred to himself as "an Associate Attorney at The McBride Law Firm, PLLC" on his personal Substack. But his bio on the site frequently changed. In a July 2023 piece on Tate, he described himself simply as an "associate" at the firm. In August, he referred to himself as a "law clerk." New York state records show that Ingrassia, a 2022 graduate of Cornell Law, took the bar on July 25-26, 2023, under his given name, Paolo Ingrassia. While Ingrassia received his results in October 2023, he was not admitted to the New York State Bar until July 30, 2024.
Responding to his nomination, Ingrassia wrote Thursday on X that "it's the highest honor to have been nominated to lead the Office of Special Counsel under President Trump!"
"As special counsel, my team and I will make every effort to restore competence and integrity to the Executive Branch—with priority on eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal workforce, and revitalize the rule of law and fairness in Hatch Act enforcement," he added.
"This is a pattern with the president's picks for watchdogs: partisan yeasayers whose willingness to stand up to the administration is questionable at best."
However, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a nonpartisan watchdog, said Friday: "Leading the Office of Special Counsel requires independence and experience. Paul Ingrassia seemingly has neither of these things."
"This is a pattern with the president's picks for watchdogs: partisan yeasayers whose willingness to stand up to the administration is questionable at best," POGO added.
Conservative writer Bobby Miller said on X that "the most insane thing about the Paul Ingrassia appointment is that he's been tapped to lead the Office of Special Counsel, an ethics watchdog tasked with enforcing laws that protect federal employees from abuse and safeguard the government from politicization."
"No one's even pretending that this Andrew Tate fanboy, Putin stooge, and martial law enthusiast would do anything even close to the job description," Miller added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's First 100 Days of Unchecked Power
It's been a lawless few months, but there's some good news here. Through times like these, we can identify ways to make our democracy work better — and for the first time in our country’s history, make it work for everyone.
Apr 30, 2025
For nearly 250 years, the American system of government has been built to guard against an authoritarian leader. Our Constitution created a careful balance of powers among the branches of government to ward off tyranny. But just 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, we are seeing this system bend to the point of breaking under the weight of a willful disregard for the rule of law.
We must take this moment to finally install more concrete guardrails against corruption and abuse of power.
America’s system of checks and balances was never meant to depend on trust alone. It was designed to be tested and strengthened. We have relied on key tools to rein in executive overreach: a vigilant Congress, a strong judiciary, an engaged citizenry informed by public interest groups, an apolitical civil service, independent inspectors general, meaningful whistleblower protections, and ethics laws, to name several.
Some of these safeguards are holding. Right now, civil society is carrying much of the burden. Investigative journalists, watchdog groups, academic institutions, and advocacy organizations are doing the work that too many public officials have abandoned. They are shining lights into corners where the government prefers darkness, informing the public and pressuring institutions to act.
The problem isn’t just that guardrails are being destroyed; some have always been missing.
The courts, too, have shown signs of resilience. Despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling expanding presidential immunity, which chipped away at the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power, judges have issued rulings that uphold our basic constitutional principles. That said, recent moves from the judicial branch are alarming. They have done so even in the face of hostile rhetoric and open defiance.
These bright spots are important, but they are the exception, not the rule. We must confront a harsh reality: Many safeguards have proven extremely fragile. If we hope to emerge from this crisis with our democracy intact, we must also confront what has failed and what we must change.
Congressional oversight has become theatrical at best and nonexistent at worst. This is especially true when the president’s party holds power. And the legislative branch has let the executive branch encroach on its power of the purse and diminish its role in the policymaking process. That dynamic must change. Members of Congress need to remember they work for their constituents. That means scrutinizing the executive branch regardless of which party controls it, holding more hearings back in members’ districts, and creating more accessible public forums.
An apolitical and secure civil service has long been a stabilizing force in our government, ensuring that laws are implemented faithfully and without bias. But mass firings and politically motivated purges are dismantling this safeguard. When loyalty to the president is prized over competence or integrity, the system begins to collapse from within. To protect their essential work, we must strengthen legal safeguards for civil servants and insulate them from political retaliation.
Inspectors general — the independent watchdogs tasked with rooting out misconduct across federal agencies — have been fundamentally disempowered. President Trump has removed many of them without explanation or cause, threatening a critical line of oversight. Congress must not only rebuild but strengthen the independence of inspectors general. That may look like moving them to the legislative branch, where they could be protected from executive interference.
The work of everyone who cares about democracy... matters more than ever. Not just for today’s crisis, but also to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
Whistleblowers, another bedrock of internal accountability, are often our first and best defense against corruption. But their protections are increasingly toothless after the president illegally fired the head of the very office designed to uphold them. This move costs us the information we need to root out corruption and abuse.
The problem isn’t just that guardrails are being destroyed; some have always been missing. Ethics laws for the most powerful people in government are far too weak. Both the president and vice president are exempt from the conflict-of-interest rules that apply to the federal workforce. Members of Congress can buy and trade stocks even though their decisions often move markets. And Elon Musk’s role in the White House demonstrates how glaring financial conflicts can sow deep distrust in government actions. We need stronger laws at the highest levels so the public can be confident their government is working in their interest.
None of these failures exist in isolation. Each one enables the other. Without consequences, the last abuse of power is just practice for the next.
But here’s the good news: the reverse is also true. Strengthen any of these pillars, and you strengthen the whole system. That’s why our work — the work of everyone who cares about democracy — matters more than ever. Not just for today’s crisis, but also to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
We can make our democracy work — and for the first time in our country’s history, make it work for everyone. But only if we fight for it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Senate Must Demand Answers' Over Trump's Purge of Inspectors General
Their dismissals raise "significant concerns about maintaining the integrity and continuity of oversight," according to civil society groups.
Feb 11, 2025
Nine civil society groups are demanding that the Senate take action "to reaffirm its oversight role" in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's removal of at least 17 inspectors general at various federal agencies last month—a move that critics have called illegal.
Inspectors general are independent government watchdogs who are tasked with detecting and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse at federal agencies. They were installed as part of post-Watergate reforms.
The work of inspectors general is "especially important during times of presidential transition to ensure that agencies continue to operate effectively and serve the public," wrote the authors of the letter, which was addressed to the members of the U.S. Senate and dated Tuesday.
"The removal of multiple [inspectors general] at once raises significant concerns about maintaining the integrity and continuity of oversight. These abrupt dismissals undermine the ability of [inspectors general] to conduct thorough and impartial investigations, potentially deterring accountability at a critical time," they added.
The letter is signed by nine groups: American Oversight; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Hispanic Leadership Fund; National Taxpayers Union; Project on Government Oversight; Public Citizen; R Street Institute; Taxpayers for Common Sense; and Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
"The Senate must demand answers," according to the groups, because federal law mandates that the president must give Congress 30 days advance notice of intent to remove an inspector general, along with the reason for the removal.
Hannibal Ware, chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, cast doubt on the legality of the firings in a January 24 letter sent to Sergio Gor, director of the Presidential Personnel Office, in response to the removals.
"I recommend that you reach out to White House counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed inspectors general," Ware wrote in the letter.
One of the inspectors general at the time described the removals as a "widespread massacre."
Viewed with hindsight, the firings of the inspectors general can be seen as an opening salvo in a string of high-profile, legally dubious removals that Trump has carried out over the past few weeks.
Trump recently dismissed a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board and "purportedly" removed the special counsel at the Office of Special Counsel, in both cases prompting lawsuits, among other removals.
Some senators, for their part, have already condemned Trump's removal of the inspectors general. Last week, over three dozen senators signed a letter to Trump saying that his actions violated removal protections and that they should be reinstated.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Lawsuit Reveals Trump Quietly Fired Head of Office That Protects Whistleblowers
"This illegal firing undermines the office that investigates whistleblower disclosures of wrongdoing and enforces the law meant to keep partisan politics out of the federal workforce," wrote one watchdog group.
Feb 10, 2025
Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, the head of an independent federal agency that protects whistleblowers, filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday alleging that U.S. President Donald Trump's "purported" dismissal of him via email on Friday is unlawful and ignores for cause removal protections that Dellinger is entitled to.
Dellinger is one of a number of officials at independent federal agencies that Trump has moved to fire in recent weeks.
According to the complaint, Dellinger received an email from Sergio Gor, director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, on February 7, which read: "On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as special counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service[.]"
The complaint lists six defendants, including Gor, Trump, acting Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Karen Gorman ("upon the purported removal" of Dellinger, according to the complaint), Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Chief Operating Officer of the OSC Karl Kanmann, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought.
Dellinger is requesting that the court declare his firing unlawful and affirm that he is the head of the OSC.
The filing also asks the court to order that "Bessent, Gor, Kammann, and Vought may not place an acting special counsel in plaintiff Hampton Dellinger's position, or otherwise recognize any other person as special counsel or as the agency head of the Office of Special Counsel."
The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight called the move against Dellinger "illegal" and wrote on X on Monday that it "undermines the office that investigates whistleblower disclosures of wrongdoing and enforces the law meant to keep partisan politics out of the federal workforce."
The OSC is both an investigative and prosecutorial agency whose main mission is to protect federal employees from "prohibited personnel practices"—in particular reprisals for whistleblowing. The office is different from the "special counsels" that the U.S. Department of Justice may appoint to prosecute cases in instances where they deem there may be a conflict of interest.
Dellinger was nominated to be the special counsel of the OSC by then-President Joe Biden in 2023 and was confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term that was set to expire in 2029.
The complaint cites federal statute, which mandates that "the special counsel may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Dellinger's legal counsel argues that the email from Gor does not accuse Dellinger of "any inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance... nor could it."
In late January, Trump fired National Labor Relations Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, who has since sued over her dismissal, as well as two Democratic members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Federal Election Commission Commissioner and Chair Ellen Weintraub also said that Trump tried to remove her improperly.
The Trump administration also purged over a dozen inspectors generals who perform oversight duties at various federal agencies.
The filing also argues that the removal of these sorts of civil servants makes the work of the OSC all the more important.
"Congress authorized the OSC with a crucial investigative and oversight role to protect the integrity of the civil service in circumstances such as these," wrote Dellinger's lawyers.
"The recent spate of terminations of protected civil service employees under the new presidential administration has created controversies, both about the lawfulness of these actions and about potential retaliation against whistleblowers," they added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Launches 'War Room' to Monitor Trump's Corruption and Destruction
"Americans will know how the Trump administration and its allies are working for themselves, big corporations, and the wealthy, not the American people," said Accountable.US.
Nov 13, 2024
With the incoming Trump administration taking shape in recent days as President-elect Donald Trump has selected several of his political allies as members of his Cabinet, government watchdog Accountable.US on Wednesday announced its plan to monitor and demand accountability for corruption and abuses of power in the White House during the Republican's second term in office.
Accountable.US is a known entity to Trump allies, as ProPublica reported recently. Training videos for Project 2025, the far-right agenda co-authored by more than 100 former Trump staffers, showed conservative leaders warning potential future administration members to avoid leading a paper trail for the watchdog to follow.
"You're probably better off going down to the canteen, getting a cup of coffee, talking it through, and making the decision, as opposed to sending him an email and creating a thread that Accountable.US [...] is going to come back and seek," said one Project 2025 leader.
The group spent the first Trump administration exposing "swampy revolving-door Potomac politics" at the Interior Department, where lobbyist-turned-Interior Secretary David Bernhardt had "glaring conflicts of interest," and the Small Business Administration's decision to give $15.8 million in pandemic relief for struggling mom-and-pop businesses to police organizations, among other indiscretions.
Now, said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone, "Americans will know how the Trump administration and its allies are working for themselves, big corporations, and the wealthy, not the American people."
"With Trump and his MAGA allies set to implement their Project 2025 blueprint for the federal government, it is more critical than ever that the public is informed about who will lead these agencies and implement an extreme agenda that will hurt millions of Americans, devastate the economy, and undermine our democracy," said Ciccone.
The group's initiative, the Trump Accountability War Room, will provide analyses and oversight of Trump's staffing decisions and nominations, executive actions, and legislative agenda.
On Tuesday, Accountable.US drew attention to Trump's refusal to sign several ethics agreements with the Biden administration, as is required for the presidential transition.
"Everyone is surprised: Donald Trump is already in violation of federal law," said the group. "This time, it's an ethics code required for presidential transition that he signed into law. Donald Trump has made it clear—he does not think any law applies to him."
The organization has also called South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Trump's homeland security secretary pick, "uniquely unprepared and unqualified for the post," pointing to her alleged abuse of state resources for personal benefit and her fabrication of meetings with world leaders.
Along with Noem's nomination, Trump announced on Tuesday his appointment of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and enterpreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a new "Department of Government Efficiency," an office tasked with eliminating "excess regulations" and restructuring federal agencies.
Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), another watchdog that has spent years exposing Trump's conflicts of interest, told The New York Times last week that "having a good friend in the White House could be a very good thing for Tesla and SpaceX."
"You have to worry about decisions that are not best for taxpayers when you have those kinds of cozy relationships," Amey said.
Musk's businesses are facing several criminal and civil investigations over alleged fraud, labor violations, and other accusations—and the election of Trump, whose campaign received nearly $120 million from the billionaire businessman, could result in little-to-no enforcement.
POGO executive director Danielle Brian said last week that the group "was created for exactly this moment."
"We're standing ready to hold this administration accountable for any such abuse of power," said Brian. "Because that's what POGO does. We work with policymakers to protect our democracy and we're not stopping now."
The Trump Accountability War Room, said Accountable.US, will "expose how Trump's new team—backed by Project 2025—plans to reshape America for their own gain, putting corporate interests over the rest of us."
"We won't let them dismantle our rights in the shadows," said the group.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the 'Merchants of Death' Survive and Prosper
As long as people retain their faith in the supreme value of military might, we can probably also expect "defense contractors" to continue profiting from war at the public's expense.
Dec 31, 2017
During the mid-1930s, a best-selling expose of the international arms trade, combined with a U.S. Congressional investigation of munitions-makers led by Senator Gerald Nye, had a major impact on American public opinion. Convinced that military contractors were stirring up weapons sales and war for their own profit, many people grew critical of these "merchants of death."
Today, some eight decades later, their successors, now more politely called "defense contractors," are alive and well. According to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, sales of weapons and military services by the world's largest 100 corporate military purveyors in 2016 (the latest year for which figures are available) rose to $375 billion. U.S. corporations increased their share of that total to almost 58 percent, supplying weapons to at least 100 nations around the world.
The dominant role played by U.S. corporations in the international arms trade owes a great deal to the efforts of U.S. government officials. "Significant parts of the government," notes military analyst William Hartung, "are intent on ensuring that American arms will flood the global market and companies like Lockheed and Boeing will live the good life. From the president on his trips abroad to visit allied world leaders to the secretaries of state and defense to the staffs of U.S. embassies, American officials regularly act as salespeople for the arms firms." Furthermore, he notes, "the Pentagon is their enabler. From brokering, facilitating, and literally banking the money from arms deals to transferring weapons to favored allies on the taxpayers' dime, it is in essence the world's largest arms dealer."
In 2013, when Tom Kelly, the deputy assistant secretary of the State Department's Bureau of Political Affairs was asked during a Congressional hearing about whether the Obama administration was doing enough to promote American weapons exports, he replied: "[We are] advocating on behalf of our companies and doing everything we can to make sure that these sales go through. . . and that is something we are doing every day, basically [on] every continent in the world . . . and we're constantly thinking of how we can do better." This proved a fair enough assessment, for during the first six years of the Obama administration, U.S. government officials secured agreements for U.S. weapons sales of more than $190 billion around the world, especially to the volatile Middle East. Determined to outshine his predecessor, President Donald Trump, on his first overseas trip, bragged about a $110 billion arms deal (totaling $350 billion over the next decade) with Saudi Arabia.
The greatest single weapons market remains the United States, for this country ranks first among nations in military spending, with 36 percent of the global total. Trump is a keen military enthusiast, as is the Republican Congress, which is currently in the process of approving a 13 percent increase in the already astronomical U.S. military budget. Much of this future military spending will almost certainly be devoted to purchasing new and very expensive high-tech weapons, for the military contractors are adept at delivering millions of dollars in campaign contributions to needy politicians, employing 700 to 1,000 lobbyists to nudge them along, claiming that their military production facilities are necessary to create jobs, and mobilizing their corporate-funded think tanks to highlight ever-greater foreign "dangers."
They can also count upon a friendly reception from their former executives now holding high-level posts in the Trump administration, including: Secretary of Defense James Mattis (a former board member of General Dynamics); White House Chief of Staff John Kelly (previously employed by several military contractors); Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan (a former Boeing executive); Secretary of the Army Mark Esper (a former Raytheon vice president); Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson (a former consultant to Lockheed Martin); Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Ellen Lord (a former CEO of an aerospace company); and National Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg (a former employee of a major military and intelligence contractor).
This formula works very well for U.S. military contractors, as illustrated by the case of Lockheed Martin, the largest arms merchant in the world. In 2016, Lockheed's weapons sales rose by almost 11 percent to $41 billion, and the company is well on its way to even greater affluence thanks to its production of the F-35 fighter jet. Lockheed began work on developing the technologically-advanced warplane in the 1980s and, since 2001, the U.S. government has expended over $100 billion for its production. Today, estimates by military analysts as to the total cost to taxpayers of the 2,440 F-35s desired by Pentagon officials range from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, making it the most expensive procurement program in U.S. history.
The F-35's enthusiasts have justified the enormous expense of the warplane by emphasizing its projected ability to make a quick liftoff and a vertical landing, as well as its adaptability for use by three different branches of the U.S. military. And its popularity might also reflect their assumption that its raw destructive power will help them win future wars against Russia and China. "We can't get into those aircraft fast enough," Lieutenant General Jon Davis, the Marine Corps' aviation chief, told a House Armed Services subcommittee in early 2017. "We have a game changer, a war winner, on our hands."
Even so, aircraft specialists point out that the F-35 continues to have severe structural problems and that its high-tech computer command system is vulnerable to cyberattack. "This plane has a long way to go before it's combat-ready," remarked a military analyst at the Project on Government Oversight. "Given how long it's been in development, you have to wonder whether it'll ever be ready."
Startled by the extraordinary expense of the F-35 project, Donald Trump initially derided the venture as "out of control." But, after meeting with Pentagon officials and Lockheed CEO Marilynn Hewson, the new president reversed course, praising "the fantastic" F-35 as a "great plane" and authorizing a multi-billion dollar contract for 90 more of them.
In retrospect, none of this is entirely surprising. After all, other giant military contractors--for example, Nazi Germany's Krupp and I.G. Farben and fascist Japan's Mitsubishi and Sumitomo--prospered heavily by arming their nations for World War II and continued prospering in its aftermath. As long as people retain their faith in the supreme value of military might, we can probably also expect Lockheed Martin and other "merchants of death" to continue profiting from war at the public's expense.
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