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
transparency
Watchdog Says Rule Change for Federal Grants a ‘Recipe for Corruption’ on a Never-Before-Seen Scale
“This is not a grant reform—it is a blueprint for a spoils system applied to federal science funding."
Jul 13, 2026
An environmental watchdog group is calling on the White House Office of Management and Budget to withdraw a proposal that it said will give President Donald Trump and his allies unchecked power to control over a trillion dollars worth of federal grants.
Monday marked the end of the public comment period for a proposal from the OMB, spearheaded by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought and issued in late May, that would require all discretionary federal grants to “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.”
As Elizabeth Kolbert explained in The New Yorker:
It would replace the current guidance for signing off on government grants, which generally leaves the task to civil servants and peer-review panels.
Instead, the final say would go to political appointees. All discretionary awards from the federal government would have to be assessed by senior administration officials, who could deny them on the [grounds] that they didn’t fit the President’s agenda. Grants could also be terminated at any time for the same reason.
The rules would affect hundreds of billions of dollars in funding disbursed by agencies ranging from the National Endowment for the Arts to the Transportation Department, to pay for everything from local dance performances to massive infrastructure projects.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a formal comment on Monday urging the OMB to withdraw the proposal.
"The scale of what is proposed is staggering," the group said. "This rule would institutionalize corruption and cronyism in the distribution of over a trillion dollars in annual federal funds."
The comment noted the proposal's language forbidding political appointees from deferring to peer review, which the group said will lead grants to be awarded based on ideological conformity rather than scientific merit.
"This language makes clear that the rule's purpose is not to add accountability over expert review but to replace expert judgment with political judgment entirely," the comment says. "Researchers would learn quickly to propose only work likely to survive ideological screening, while federal program officers, many of whom are being stripped of civil service protections, would face pressure to recommend or approve grants to preserve their jobs. "
“This would corrupt scientific judgment at every level of the process,” it adds, noting the Trump administration’s concerted effort to strip away funding for research on health and environmental issues that conflict with his political agenda, including climate science, vaccine safety, chemical safety, and emerging infectious diseases.
Since last year, the administration has terminated or frozen nearly 8,000 research grants and has effectively slashed the budget of the National Science Foundation by refusing to disburse funds appropriated by Congress. The agency is on track to issue the fewest grants in more than half a century, according to a report last month from Grant Witness.
The proposal would also allow agency heads to keep grants from being posted publicly whenever they determine that doing so would be contrary to the "national interest," which the rule does not define.
PEER said this change "permits agencies to offer grants by invitation only among preferred recipients with no requirement to explain or justify the determination."
The group pointed to the Trump administration’s pattern of directing no-bid contracts to the president’s family, friends, and supporters.
Trump megadonor and former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk, the comment notes, was allowed to oversee the cancellation of the contracts for numerous vendors while never touching any of the more than $19 billion his businesses held in federal contracts.
“This is not a grant reform—it is a blueprint for a spoils system applied to federal science funding,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of PEER.
PEER's comment is one of nearly 342,000 OMB has received about the proposal in just over a month, of which 52,000 are publicly posted. The office is hoping to finalize the proposal by October 1 and has denied requests from watchdog organizations to extend the public comment period.
If that happens, Whitehouse has said it would upend the systems of accountability and transparency for scientific funding that have been in place for decades.
“Grant money has historically been distributed through programs authorized by Congress using statutory, regulatory, formula-based, or competitive criteria rather than direct tests of political loyalty,” added Whitehouse. “Placing all scientific research funding under the unreviewable discretion of political appointees is not an administrative reform; it is a recipe for corruption on a scale not seen even in this administration.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Going Out of Its Way to Enable Trump,’ Supreme Court Has Used Secretive Shadow Docket Like Never Before
"That hugely consequential cases are decided with no transparency," said one civil rights lawyer, "only adds to the court's illegitimacy and further decreases the public's confidence."
Jul 02, 2026
As its conservative majority showed unprecedented deference to President Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court passed what ProPublica described as a "troubling milestone" during the term that ended last October.
For the first time in its modern history, an analysis published Wednesday found, the court decided more cases using its secretive "shadow docket" than using the regular process.
Unlike the so-called "merits docket," in which cases undergo lengthy periods of review, parties file briefs and make oral arguments for their side, and the justices issue extensive signed rulings explaining their reasoning, shadow docket decisions are expedited and offer little mechanism for accountability.
They are often unsigned, with no final vote count or explanation of the court’s decision, and are often issued within hours of legal action being taken, leaving no time for deliberation or public input.
These cases are meant to be reserved for emergency or temporary interventions. But as Trump has attempted to exert unprecedented executive authority that often brazenly pushes legal boundaries, ProPublica found that the court's use of the shadow docket has exploded.
The analysis found that during the last Supreme Court term, the court issued 63 decisions on the shadow docket, compared with just 56 on the merits docket. Analyzing more than two decades of decisions by the high court, they found that the court has never come close to issuing this many secret decisions in any previous term.
This is due largely to the Trump administration's unprecedented petitioning to have cases decided on the shadow docket after elements of the president's agenda were stymied by lower courts.
As ProPublica explained, the court "has repeatedly green-lit policies of his that lower courts have blocked—and has done so with little to no explanation," and often the decisions have been highly consequential and "have thrown lower courts’ processes into turmoil and have sometimes directly contradicted longstanding legal precedent."
On June 23, 2025, after a lower court had ruled that eight men being deported to South Sudan should have due process, the Supreme Court intervened after a request from the administration to stop that order. The men were deported. The majority didn’t issue an opinion justifying its ruling.
Three months later, the Supreme Court voted to allow immigration agents to stop people based on racial or ethnic characteristics while still-ongoing litigation against it proceeded. To justify the decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a rare shadow docket opinion that people who were in the country legally would be “free to go after the brief encounter.” These became known as “Kavanaugh stops.” Last year, ProPublica found more than 170 citizens who had been stopped and detained by ICE agents. The more than 50 Americans held even after agents learned of their citizenship were almost all Latino.
And in May, while an election in Louisiana was already underway, the justices allowed the state to immediately redraw its electoral map, removing one of the two majority-Black voting districts. Louisiana can now use that map for the 2026 midterms as part of a nationwide redistricting battle for control of the House of Representatives—an effort touched off by Trump’s call for Republican-led states to create more safe seats for themselves.
An analysis by the legal group Court Accountability in October found that the Supreme Court sided with Trump 90% of the time in the 23 orders included in its analysis of his second administration through October 2025, nearly all of which were issued on the shadow docket.
“The patterns show a court going out of its way to enable Trump,” Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and a Supreme Court analyst, told ProPublica.
Noting that the American public’s approval of the high court has fallen substantially in recent years, Leslie Proll, a civil rights lawyer and the former director of voting rights at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called the court’s unprecedented secrecy “utterly disgraceful.”
"That hugely consequential cases are decided with no transparency," she said, "only adds to the court's illegitimacy and further decreases the public's confidence."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say Trump NDA Requirement Would 'Kneecap Whistleblower Protections'
The lone intent of the new policy, said one watchdog, "would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information.”
May 26, 2026
The Trump administration—the self-styled “most transparent administration in history”—plans to require all federal government employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in what it claims is an effort to stop damaging information from leaking, but what critics warn is a cynical effort to subvert accountability and hide malfeasance.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday on a draft notice posted to the Federal Register by the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is expected to be published on Wednesday.
Consistent with the Trump administration’s efforts to squash negative reporting on its endeavors, the new rule contains a sweeping order that would ban federal employees from going to the press with any information deemed “confidential.”
Notably, this is different from the typical designation of "classified" vs. "unclassified." It encompasses “non-public, confidential, or proprietary information” or “any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available and should not be disclosed under applicable law.”
Both current and former employees would need "written permission from an authorized agency official" to speak to the press about matters deemed "confidential" under the draft's terms, or they could be subject to civil and criminal penalties.
It will be up to individual agencies whether they require employees to sign the NDAs, but the document said doing so would "promote consistency across government, better protect confidential information, and better inform federal employees of their rights and obligations regarding confidential information."
Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon has already enacted a strict NDA that “prohibits the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process," which it enacted late last year along with random lie-detector testing aimed at finding leakers.
The draft notice reported on Tuesday suggests a similar requirement will become blanket policy across a wide swath of agencies. The notice gives an idea of what sorts of information the administration wants to shield from journalistic scrutiny.
The document cites the unauthorized leak in February 2025 of information about the Department of Homeland Security's mass deportation targets in Los Angeles and Aurora, Colorado, which led then-Secretary Kristi Noem to start subjecting employees to polygraph tests to root out leakers.
Another whistleblower in January published identifying information for about 4,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol employees.
The draft also pointed to disclosures to the New York Times and Washington Post, giving the outlets advanced notice of the planned US raid on Venezuela to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro in January, which the outlets waited to publish until after the illegal operation was complete.
The NDA proposal is the latest attack on critical journalism by the Trump administration, part of a pattern to assert stricter control over the flow of information to the public.
The Pentagon has sought to strip credentials from outlets unless they agree to only publish approved information. Trump and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr have threatened the broadcast licenses of networks that give Trump negative coverage and opened investigations into them. Trump, meanwhile, has personally launched unprecedented multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against media outlets, many of which judges have thrown out of court due to lack of merit.
In a statement sent to Common Dreams on Tuesday, Lauren Harper, the Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the proposed NDA requirement "not just absurd" but "unnecessary and dangerously secretive."
“This policy, from a president who has previously attempted to impose oppressive, corporate-style confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements on federal employees," Harper said, "would kneecap whistleblower protections, undermine the First Amendment, and wrongly inhibit the public’s right to know.”
OPM Director Scott Kupor defended the requirement. “In much of the private sector," he told the Post, "employees handling sensitive business or customer information are routinely required to sign confidentiality agreements, and the federal government should not be held to a lower standard.”
But critics argue that the federal government doing the same poses potential First Amendment violations. Although federal whistleblower laws protect employees’ ability to go to the press about waste, fraud, and abuse, experts told the Post that the NDA proposal could, in practice, be used as a “catchall gag order” that could lead employees to feel their jobs are in danger if they speak out.
“Trying to force the entire federal government to adopt the Trump organization’s aggressive use of NDAs won’t make anybody safer and won’t improve agency processes," Harper said. "Its sole intent would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information.”
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said the NDA proposal shows the Trump administration is continuing "its efforts to silence federal employees.”
“This proposed rule," said Kelley, "sweeps in an extraordinarily broad category of information, extending restrictions to the very material the public relies on to learn when an administration is causing harm. Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept federal employment."
"OPM claims the form will be ‘optional’ for agencies to use and merely restates existing law," Kelley added. "We know that will not be true. OPM will pressure agencies to make the NDA mandatory and then fire employees who refuse to sign it."
He said the rule change was unnecessary because there are already "extensive policies and procedures" to prevent classified and privileged info from being leaked.
Kelley said, "This proposed rule sweeps in an extraordinarily broad category of information, extending restrictions to the very material the public relies on to learn when an administration is causing harm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog: Sure Looks Like Trump Uses App That Auto-Deletes Messages to Chat With World Leaders
"President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping."
Jan 27, 2026
A watchdog group is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may have violated federal recordkeeping laws by using an auto-deleting message application to text world leaders.
On Tuesday, the group American Oversight sent a letter to White House Counsel David Warrington asking for information about whether the president is taking all the required steps to comply with the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of all presidential records—including digital correspondence—during official duties.
The group highlighted two posts Trump made on Truth Social last Tuesday in which appeared to reveal that he was using Signal or another similar messaging app to discuss world affairs with world leaders.
The first screenshot shows a message from French President Emmanuel Macron, who discussed plans to meet with Trump about his proposal to take over Greenland and meetings with other foreign diplomats.
The second was sent from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who told Trump he'd use his "media engagements" in Davos to "highlight" Trump's work in Ukraine and Gaza, and expressed an interest in "finding a way forward on Greenland."
While some European diplomats found it troubling that any intimate communication they have with Trump could be exposed to the world on a whim, American Oversight said it also raised concerns about the preservation of records.
Trump has a long history of flouting rules surrounding the proper storage of documents. The group pointed out that during his first term, the president would often rip up notes, memos, and documents after reading them and at least twice reportedly attempted to flush them down the toilet.
More recently, he was indicted for improperly stashing away classified documents at his personal residence at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House and showing them to people without security clearances.
The second Trump White House has already been involved in a scandal surrounding their use of deleting message apps when a journalist was accidentally invited into a private Signal chat last year, which contained the administration's plans for an imminent strike on Yemen. The messages in that chat were reportedly set to delete after one week, before later being changed to four, which would have also violated the Presidential Records Act.
“President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping,” said American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. “The Presidential Records Act exists to ensure transparency of presidential decisions and safeguard the historical record for the American people."
"Given President Trump’s well-documented history of mishandling sensitive information and presidential records," he added, "the White House must assure the public that these communications are secure and being preserved and protected in full compliance with the law.”
The group has requested that the White House counsel disclose any other messages Trump may have sent using auto-deleting apps and ensure that any messages sent through mobile messaging programs are properly preserved.
Keep ReadingShow Less
83% of Americans Want Trump Admin to End Secrecy Behind Lethal, Extrajudicial Boat Strikes
Nearly seven in 10 feel the Trump administration has not provided evidence to justify its killing of at least 114 people in the Caribbean and other international waters.
Jan 07, 2026
The vast majority of US voters want the Trump administration to be more transparent about its campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and other international waters, according to a new poll out Monday.
While it has faded from the headlines over the past week due to President Donald Trump's illegal overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and atdtempt to commandeer the nation's oil, his bombings of alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and elsewhere have continued into the new year.
As of January 2, the US military had disclosed 35 separate attacks to the public, with a death toll of at least 114 people in total since September. But the administration has provided scant evidence to justify the attacks.
According to an ACLU/YouGov poll released on Monday, which was conducted in late December, 83% of voters believed the administration must release its legal justifications and full, unedited videos of the lethal strikes. This includes 97% of Democrats, but also 82% of independents and 70% of Republicans.
Several media outlets reported in November that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) authored a still-classified legal opinion justifying the strikes and exempting those involved in directing them from future prosecution. The ACLU and other rights groups filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last month for the document.
The poll shows that a majority of voters—87% of Democrats, 53% of independents, and 15% of Republicans—disapproved of the strikes, while nearly seven in 10 felt that the administration has not yet shown evidence to the public justifying the bombings.
Members of both parties in Congress have called for the administration to release video of the strikes, with particular scrutiny on the September 2 "double-tap" strike in which the military bombed two shipwrecked survivors of an earlier attack.
Last month, Hegseth declined a request from Congress to release unedited video footage of the incident to the public. He had previously changed his recounting of the event multiple times, initially boasting of the attack before shunting the blame onto an underling—Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley—when the second strike was made public and met with outcry.
Trump, meanwhile, has misled the public about what drugs were supposedly on the boats. He has publicly stated that the ships were carrying fentanyl, a drug that has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in the US, dubbing it a "weapon of mass destruction."
Lawmakers have said they were briefed that the ships were actually carrying cocaine, which is much less deadly, though evidence of this has also not been shown to the public.
One bombed-out ship that washed up on the shores of Colombia in late December with two mangled corpses aboard was found to have only been carrying marijuana, which is legal in more than half of all US states. Other investigations have found that some of those killed in the strikes were fishermen or others not connected to the drug trade.
While the September 2 strikes—which were reportedly given the go-ahead by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—have become the subject of a congressional inquiry, the ACLU says the entire bombing campaign is illegal.
"The US military may not, under any circumstances, execute civilians who are merely suspected of smuggling drugs," the group said last month. "Rather, the US government must first pursue non-lethal measures like arrest and demonstrate that lethal force is an absolute last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury."
Two-thirds of respondents to the poll said that rather than carry out extrajudicial executions, they would prefer that the Coast Guard conduct its usual operations, seizing those it suspects of transporting drugs and putting them on trial.
Meanwhile, 58% said they'd support Congress holding a public hearing with officials in charge of the strikes, such as Hegseth, while just 19% said they'd oppose it.
Just over half described killing people suspected of carrying drugs as "murder," with that belief growing even stronger with respect to the double-tap strike.
"Our polling makes clear that an overwhelming number of Americans on both sides of the aisle want Congress to step up and hold the Trump administration publicly accountable for its illegal strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean,” said Christopher Anders, director of ACLU’s democracy and technology division.
“This means open hearings with the officials responsible for these murders, as well as releasing both the legal justification and unedited videos of the strikes," he continued. "Given the life-or-death stakes of the president’s use of force, it’s imperative that this transparency and accountability comes immediately.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cover-Up Feared as Epstein Files Law Lets DOJ Redact Info Sensitive to ‘National Security’
"Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation," said independent journalist Ken Klippenstein. "But the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people."
Nov 20, 2025
After its near-unanimous approval in Congress and following months of sustained public pressure, President Donald Trump signed a law on Wednesday releasing the files from the FBI's investigation into the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The law is called the "Epstein Files Transparency Act," but critics fear that a key provision could allow the US Department of Justice to keep critical information from coming to light.
The law requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to "make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials" related to the investigations into Epstein and his partner and coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell within the next 30 days.
But critically, it gives Bondi expansive power to redact large amounts of information, potentially burying material that may be incriminating to the president, whose relationship with the disgraced financier has become the subject of greater speculation with each new set of documents released.
One provision allows Bondi to redact documents to strike information that "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution." Last week, Trump ordered Bondi to open investigations into Epstein's connections with several prominent Democrats: Among them are former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.
Lawmakers have raised fears that these investigations were enacted to give Bondi greater leeway to scrub information from the record. On Monday, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), the law's Republican cosponsor, warned that the DOJ "may be trying to use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files."
But another largely overlooked section may give her even more sweeping authority. The law states that information may also be redacted "if the attorney general makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security." It also allows her to redact information deemed "to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
While the law requires Bondi to issue a written justification for each piece of redacted information and also clarifies that no file shall be "withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary," it does not define the criteria Bondi must use to determine whether something is in the interest of America's "national security," "national defense," or "foreign policy."
"One glaring loophole will prevent full transparency: It’s called national security," wrote independent journalist Ken Klippenstein Monday, as the House moved toward a vote on the files. "Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation, but the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people by depriving them of information."
There are many cases in recent memory of the US using national security as a justification to withhold information from the public. Earlier this year, the Trump administration used its "state secrets" privilege to deny a judge's request to turn over information related to its extrajudicial deportation flights to El Salvador, arguing that it would compromise its diplomatic relations with that country. Meanwhile, past administrations have used national security to justify keeping the public in the dark about everything from the military's use of torture to the government's mass surveillance of American citizens.
While the primary interest in Epstein surrounds his alleged role in facilitating a sex trafficking ring for the political and economic elite, there are clear cases where the government could attempt to use national security as a justification to keep information hidden.
For example, recent documents have revealed the extent of his involvement with foreign intelligence and dealmaking. Drop Site News has reported extensively on Epstein's long history working as an informal fixer for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to secure deals with several foreign nations that benefited Israel and attempted to shape global politics, including in the United States, to its interests.
Klippenstein has also raised concerns about the inclusion of the word "unclassified" in the bill, which he noted "is an official word that in theory only exists when it comes to national security matters; that is, that the release of such information could cause 'harm' to national security."
He said he asked Massie and the law's Democratic cosponsor, Ro Khanna (Calif.), for comment on why that word was included at all since the law does not relate to national security. Neither responded.
But Massie told journalist Michael Tracey back in September that a similar provision to redact info related to “national defense” was included because, "You have to put that in there if you’re going to get them to sign it."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who fought against the release of the files until the bitter end but ultimately voted for the bill along with all but one member of the House, invoked what he called "national security concerns" in a last-ditch effort to stop the discharge petition that brought the Epstein bill to the House floor.
It echoed what Bondi herself said back in March when asked on Fox News why any information besides victims' names would need to be stricken from the record: "Of course, national security."
"If large sections of the files remain redacted or withheld, the public may face a truncated version of 'transparency,' one that protects many of the powerful rather than exposes them," wrote independent journalist Brian Allen. "This is not just a story about Epstein. It is a stress test of our system of accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Latest Epstein Gambit
The next time you hear that Trump has somehow reversed his earlier resistance to releasing the Epstein files, remember that he hasn’t. He could have ordered their disclosure long ago; he never needed a congressional resolution compelling it.
Nov 20, 2025
Jeffrey Epstein may have committed suicide in 2019, but he remains an albatross around President Donald Trump’s neck. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release all of the Justice Department’s Epstein files. As president, he could honor that pledge with the stroke of a social media post. Instead, he has done everything in his power to prevent such disclosure.
Some pundits claim that Trump has finally reversed his earlier resistance to releasing the files. He hasn’t. Rather, he has deployed yet another strategy to achieve his true objective—continued secrecy. And he’s relying on his faithful sycophant, Attorney General Pam Bondi, to execute it.
Attempt #1: Stonewalling
Back in July, Bondi’s Justice Department, together with FBI Director Kash Patel, declared that after an exhaustive review of the entire file, the investigation into Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors was over: “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
The department would release no additional materials from the Epstein files: “No further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”
Attempt #2: The Attack
As Trump’s MAGA base erupted over his administration’s refusal to release the files, he lashed out at fellow Republicans. He called supporters clamoring for greater transparency “stupid,” “foolish,” and victims of a “Democrat hoax.”
It didn’t work.
Attempt #3: The Disingenuous Directive
MAGA’s anger grew. So Trump directed Bondi to ask that the courts release the grand jury transcripts in the cases against Epstein and his coconspirator, Ghislane Maxwell.
It was a ruse. Trump and his lawyers knew that the courts were not likely to release the material, which was a tiny fraction of the DOJ file anyway. Sure enough, they didn’t. And several judges wrote blistering opinions exposing the farce and blasting Bondi for pursuing the effort.
Attempt #4: The Illusion of Transparency
Bondi’s next ploy on Trump’s behalf was the production of documents in response to a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee. It turned out that only 3% of the 20,000 documents was new. And courts had confirmed that there were 100,000 documents in the Epstein files. Where were the rest?
Attempt #5: The Shutdown
A Democrat won the Arizona special election to the US House of Representatives. As a result, a discharge petition on the resolution demanding disclosure of the Epstein files would now have the crucial 218th signature required to force a vote on the House floor.
But Trump’s lackey in the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), refused to swear in the newly-elected member. He claimed that because the House was in recess due to the government shutdown, he could not admit her. It was a subterfuge that gave Trump time to twist arms in an effort to change votes.
Attempt #6: The Strongarm
Three Republicans had sided with the Democrats to reach the 218-vote threshold required to move the Epstein resolution forward in the House. Bondi and Patel met with one of them, Rep. Laura Boebert (R-Colo.), in the White House Situation Room. A second target was Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Trump attacked the third GOP defector, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), publicly: He withdrew his endorsement and called her “wacky,” “a disgrace,” “a traitor,” and “a nuisance.”
None of the Republicans budged. Trump was going to lose the House vote.
Attempt #7: Back to Bondi
Faced with the reality that he couldn’t stop the House from passing the resolution requiring release of the Epstein files, Trump said that he would sign the resolution after it passed the Senate.
That’s a ruse too. And once again, he turned to Bondi for another escape hatch. In a social media post, Trump declared:
I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.
Only 217 minutes later, Bondi responded:
Thank you, Mr. President. SDNY U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country, and I’ve asked him to take the lead. As with all matters, the Department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people.
Now the punchline: The Justice Department will not release materials relating to an active investigation. The investigations that Trump has ordered could well suffice. Jay Clayton, who has no criminal law experience but enjoyed a stellar pre-Trump reputation as a corporate partner in the elite firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, now faces a crucial test of character.
The stated basis for the DOJ rule is that disclosure could compromise the investigative process. Never mind that in July, Bondi said that the department’s thorough investigation of the entire file “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
And the department can release—or not release—whatever it chooses. There is no meaningful enforcement mechanism. If DOJ withholds Epstein material related to Trump, the public will never know, unless there’s a whistleblower somewhere. But Trump, Bondi, and Patel have purged the top ranks of the Justice Department of anyone who is not a Trump loyalist.
The next time you hear that Trump has somehow reversed his earlier resistance to releasing the Epstein files, remember that he hasn’t. He could have ordered their disclosure long ago; he never needed a congressional resolution compelling it.
But Pam Bondi has reversed her position that the files contain nothing that warrants further investigation of anyone associated with Epstein.
Leading America’s Department of Justice is someone whom no one can trust—except Donald Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Before the Dust Settles: A Strategy for Reclaiming the People's House
We must transform this destruction into democracy's gain: proof that citizens armed with law and persistence can check executive excess.
Oct 30, 2025
On a cold October morning, heavy equipment commenced destruction of the 123-year-old East Wing of the White House. In place of rooms where presidents rehearsed the words that would steady the nation and First Ladies wrote to grieving families, we are offered glass and spectacle, a ballroom scaled to diminish the original house, a monument to appetite where once stood service. This is not modernization. This is erasure.
The destruction matters because process matters, and process was murdered alongside memory. The 1942 shell that sheltered the nation's continuity in crisis, the offices where Rosalynn Carter pioneered the modern First Lady's role, the theater where words found their gravity before facing the nation: all of it stripped away while the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts were reduced to bystanders. What should have triggered months of review, public hearings, and preservation consultation instead became fait accompli, rubble before remedy, demolition before deliberation. When a democracy allows its procedures to be treated as suggestions, it teaches citizens that power makes its own permissions.
Robert Hutchins warned that democracy dies not from ambush but from "apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." We refuse all three. Citizens have stopped juggernauts before. Echo Park Dam died when Americans decided that national parks were inviolate, forcing Congress to abandon a project already funded and designed. Storm King Mountain survived when fishermen and debutantes united to establish that citizens have standing to defend public resources in court. The Lower Manhattan Expressway never broke ground because Jane Jacobs and her neighbors proved that affected communities must be heard before concrete pours. Keystone XL collapsed after a decade of permit fights raised costs beyond what investors would bear. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline terminated when legal challenges made risk exceed reward. Each victory followed a pattern: Meticulous documentation met sustained pressure met escalating costs met political exposure met capitulation. None relied on outrage alone. All transformed fury into filing systems.
The pattern is clear: Documentation plus pressure plus cost plus exposure equals capitulation. But pattern without purpose is merely mimicry. We study these victories not to copy their tactics but to extract their essence: how citizen movements transform government overreach into government retreat. The East Wing lies in rubble, yes, but the larger assault is on process itself, on the idea that democracy requires permission before power acts. Our response must therefore be more than obstruction. It must be construction: building a legal record, a political cost, and a civic precedent that makes this demolition democracy's gain. What follows is not a lamentation but a blueprint, drawn from democracy's past victories and aimed at preservation's future protection.
The house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue belongs to the people, not to any temporary occupant.
Our objectives cascade from immediate to transformative. First, we halt further destruction through emergency legal action while building an administrative record that compels review. Second, we force full compliance with preservation law, environmental standards, and safety regulations, making each day more expensive than planners imagined. Third, we secure either significant design modifications, meaningful mitigation, or project abandonment, depending on what facts and pressure produce. Fourth, we establish precedents that close the loopholes exploited here, ensuring no future administration can demolish first and explain later. Finally, we transform this destruction into democracy's gain: proof that citizens armed with law and persistence can check executive excess, a template for resistance that travels beyond preservation to every domain where power overreaches. These are not wishes. These are waypoints.
The coalition capable of these transformations already exists in pieces waiting for assembly. Preservation groups have standing under the National Historic Preservation Act when consultation was skipped. Environmental organizations can sue under the National Environmental Policy Act when impacts were ignored. Labor unions can file complaints when workers face exposure to asbestos and other unsafe conditions. Transparency advocates can litigate under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when records are withheld. Financial accountability groups can pressure investors and insurers as risks rise. Democracy organizations can demand hearings when process is violated. Each group brings expertise, each expertise brings leverage, and leverage compounds when coordinated.
We stand on foundations built by democracy's defenders. The American Civil Liberties Union teaches us to build records that survive judicial scrutiny. Democracy Docket shows how emergency motions can freeze bulldozers. The Brennan Center demonstrates how governance law creates obligations that cannot be waived. Public Citizen proves that regulatory enforcement can accomplish what courts cannot. We are not inventing tactics. We are applying proven methods to fresh outrage.
Implementation begins with paper because paper creates predicates for everything that follows. File FOIA requests at the White House, General Services Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, Commission of Fine Arts, and Secret Service for permits, plans, correspondence, and security assessments. Submit complaints to the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment for dust, diesel, and runoff violations. Report safety violations to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for fall protection, egress, and hazard communication failures. Demand consultation records from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation offiecer. Each filing creates a clock, each clock creates a deadline, and deadlines create leverage when authorities must respond or face their own legal exposure. Paper creates the predicate. Money creates the pressure.
Money moves when risk rises, yet the administration hides its financial trail behind claims of private funding and executive privilege. This opacity itself violates federal transparency requirements and becomes our first leverage point. The absence of public contracts, disclosed budgets, and identified funders tells its own story of irregular process. We make risk visible through investigation and exposure. Insurance underwriters for any contractors we identify need documentation of violations gathered through citizen photography, FOIA responses, and whistleblower accounts.
Where specific banks and bonds remain hidden, we target the sector: Construction lenders learn their exposure through public campaigns, surety companies receive notices about federal project requirements, and institutional investors in major construction firms face shareholder resolutions about reputational risk. The secrecy itself becomes the story. Each hidden detail uncovered through investigation gains power precisely because it was concealed. The goal is not harassment but education: ensuring every potential enabler understands that anonymity provides no immunity from liability.
While we work the paper trail and money trail, we must also work the public eye. Visibility amplifies pressure because sunshine remains democracy's best disinfectant. The administration's refusal to allow normal inspections becomes evidence itself. We create our own documentation: photographs with timestamps, videos with metadata, satellite images showing changes, expert affidavits analyzing violations, sworn statements from witnesses. The absence of official oversight makes citizen documentation more powerful, not less. Publish through multiple channels: traditional media for credibility, social media for virality, specialized press for expertise, international outlets for shame. Create narrative continuity: daily violation updates, weekly revelations about hidden funding, monthly progress toward our transparent objectives while theirs remain concealed. Name names carefully but consistently: contractors who continue work, officials who skip process, donors who write checks. Build an archive that becomes the foundation for hearings, litigation, and history. Facts without dissemination die in filing cabinets. Facts with wings become forces.
Democracy's true foundation lies not in buildings but in boundaries that even presidents cannot cross.
Political oversight emerges when documentation meets constituent pressure meets media coverage meets committee jurisdiction. Representatives need specific asks: Democrats on House Oversight should immediately schedule hearings with subpoena power, any member can request Government Accountability Office investigations, senators can place holds on related nominations until answers arrive. Committees need road maps: House Oversight for process violations, Natural Resources for preservation failures, Transportation and Infrastructure for construction oversight, Appropriations for funding questions. Witnesses need assurances of protection: whistleblower attorneys, secure communications, documentation protocols, support networks. Hearings need preparation by committee staff working with preservation organizations, investigative journalists, and citizen groups who've gathered evidence. Politics responds to persistence more than passion. Three constituents calling weekly outweigh 300 signing once.
When documentation and political pressure converge, litigation becomes the hammer. The National Historic Preservation Act requires consultation that clearly did not occur. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates impact assessment that was skipped. The Federal Records Act prohibits destruction of documents that may have disappeared. The Administrative Procedure Act forbids arbitrary and capricious action, which demolition without review exemplifies. Standing exists for preservation groups, neighbors, historians, and arguably any citizen whose heritage was stolen. Remedies range from temporary restraining orders to permanent injunctions to damages to mandamus compelling proper process. Even unsuccessful suits surface documents through discovery, create delay through procedure, and impose costs through defense. The courthouse is not the only venue, but in this era of executive overreach, it often proves the most powerful.
Timeline becomes strategy when pressure synchronizes with opportunity. Phase One establishes the record through mass FOIA filing, safety and environmental complaints, and initial contractor contacts. Phase Two analyzes responses, files initial lawsuits, escalates investor pressure, and builds media narrative. Phase Three seeks preliminary injunctions, holds initial hearings, publishes major investigations, and assesses contractor defections. Phase Four maintains indefinite pressure: enforcing victories, codifying new protections, and preparing for the next assault. Each phase documents every violation and establishes triggers for escalation or negotiation. Success might come quickly through an early injunction or slowly through accumulated costs. The plan adapts, but pressure never releases.
Victory has faces. Minimum victory: Full documentation enters the permanent record, creating evidence for future accountability and prevention. Moderate victory: Design modifications reduce harm, mitigation addresses damage, and public process governs remaining work. Maximum victory: the Project halts, redesign respects history, and those responsible face consequences. Transformative victory: New legislation closes loopholes, preservation becomes politically sacred, and citizens discover their power. Any victory beats surrender. Every victory builds toward the next. The measure is not whether we restore every stone but whether we establish that stones cannot be removed without permission.
This is how disasters become democratic gains. The house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue belongs to the people, not to any temporary occupant. Memory is the mortgage we have never missed, the deed we will never surrender. When dawn brought rubble where history stood, it also brought clarity: A republic that allows process to be optional will soon find democracy optional too. We answer not with violence or vandalism but with the tools democracy provides: transparency that embarrasses, law that constrains, costs that accumulate, and politics that punish. Each violation documented today becomes evidence tomorrow. Each dollar spent on lawyers becomes unavailable for luxuries. Each day delayed is a day democracy wins.
Frederick Douglass knew that "power concedes nothing without a demand." We make that demand through every channel democracy provides. Let those who gamble with our inheritance learn what Echo Park Dam taught, what Storm King Mountain proved, what Keystone XL demonstrated: that citizens armed with facts and law and time can stop anything, that money fears exposure more than regulation, that even presidents must eventually answer to process. The reckoning follows, patient as gravity, certain as memory. Step by careful step, document by document, hearing by hearing, until democracy's antibodies overwhelm this infection. Until those who thought they could build on rubble discover they have built on sand. Until the next demolition crew thinks twice, thinks three times, and thinks better.
John Philpot Curran understood that "the condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance." That vigilance begins here, with this violation, with this response. Restore sequence. Restore sunlight. Restore the understanding that in a republic, the people's house requires the people's permission. Not for aesthetics. Not for nostalgia. For the principle that process precedes power, that memory matters more than monuments, that democracy's true foundation lies not in buildings but in boundaries that even presidents cannot cross. This is how we turn catastrophe into catalyst. This is how the resistance remembers how to resist. This is how democracy proves it deserves to survive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pete Hegseth Can't Handle the Truth
Trump's secretary of war is trying to make it harder for inspectors general and reporters to investigate what's really going on at the Pentagon.
Oct 17, 2025
On September 30, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pontificated before his captive audience of 800 admirals and generals whom he had summoned from locations around the globe. The media reports of the event focused on soundbites: new physical fitness requirements, grooming standards (“no more beardos”—but don’t tell Vice President JD Vance or the president’s son), eliminating “woke” policies, and other elements of his department’s new “warfighting culture.”
Observing that the military's policy on “hazing, bullying, and harassment is overly broad,” Hegseth also said that the inspector general’s office “has been weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues, and poor performers in the driver’s seat.”
He dealt with that problem too.
Hegseth’s New Rules of Engagement: No. 1—Avoid Accountability
As with all IGs, the Defense Department’s inspector general operates independently to assure government accountability. The office pursues waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, mismanagement, whistleblower complaints, and more. With Hegseth in charge, its plate is full.
As Hegseth railed against the IG, it was investigating Signalgate—his massive national security breach. On March 15, he had used the Signal app to discuss with top Pentagon leaders the detailed plans for an imminent attack on Houthis in Yemen. But the chat mistakenly included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Another Signal chat that day involving similarly sensitive information included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer.
On September 30, Hegseth published new rules for inspector general investigations, including:
- Within seven days of a complaint, an investigation must be initiated or the complaint closed;
- An investigation can “be initiated only if the complaint meets credible-evidence standard [sic]”;
- The subjects of an investigation must receive status reports every 14 days; and
- “Command directed investigations must be closed within 30 days of initiation….”
The Signalgate investigation itself is evidence that thorough investigations of complex issues cannot occur before the 30-day deadline. That will kill them.
The new timelines and reporting requirements are part of the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to curtail oversight of legally questionable moves, according to Sen. Jack Reed (R-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
But there’s more.
Hegseth’s New Rule of Engagement: No. 2—Suppress Facts
On September 19, Hegseth issued a new policy that every reporter in the Pentagon had to sign: They could access the building only if they agreed to publish information that was “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”
Any reporter who violated the policy would face punishment ranging from the denial of press privileges to criminal prosecution. Reporters who failed to sign the new agreement by October 14 were required to turn in their press passes.
On October 6, Hegseth revised the policy so that it didn’t appear to be such a plainly unconstitutional prior restraint on a free press. The 21-page document clarified that reporters need not submit their materials in advance of publication. But it shifted the focus from punishing journalists who publish information that Hegseth doesn’t want disseminated to: 1) undermining journalists’ ability to gather it in the first place; and 2) inhibiting Defense Department employees from providing it.
Because Pete Hegseth can’t handle accountability or criticism, transparency is his enemy.
Specifically, the policy warned that journalists who “solicit” federal employees to disclose information that has not been approved for release may lose their press credentials. And according to the revised memo, “Solicitation may include direct communications with specific (Defense) personnel or general appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging (Defense) employees to share non-public (Defense) information.”
The Pentagon Press Association represents more than 100 news organizations that regularly cover the Pentagon. In a powerful statement, the Association said that Hegseth and his department were trying to “stifle a free press” with the new policy that “conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DOD, warning against any unapproved interactions with the press and even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission—which plainly, it is not.”
As Politico reported, it was “an unprecedented move that demands media outlets hand the department vast control over what they publish… The new rules give the Pentagon wide latitude to label journalists as security threats and revoke passes for those who obtain or publish information the agency says is unfit for public release.”
Every major news organization, including the conservative outlets Newsmax and Fox News (Hegseth’s former employer), refused to sign Hegseth’s document. Only the far-right, pro-Trump One America News agreed.
Here’s Fox News’ statement:
Today, we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to the Pentagon’s new requirements, which would restrict journalists’ ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.
The Lessons
Two themes emerge from this sequence of events:
First, because Pete Hegseth can’t handle accountability or criticism, transparency is his enemy; and
Second, collective action to resist Trump administration assaults on the Constitution is possible.
Never give in. Never give up.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Journalist Sues to Secure Three Months Worth of Hegseth Signal Chat Messages
"And we are bringing this case to make sure that they can't just put national security at risk for their own convenience and then destroy all the evidence afterwards," said the head of the group that filed the lawsuit.
Apr 25, 2025
As the Trump administration faces a metastasizing controversy over reports of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's use of the commercial messaging app Signal, including to discuss U.S. strikes in Yemen, the legal group National Security Counselors on Friday sued on behalf of a journalist to secure three months worth of conversations that took place on the encrypted platform.
According to The Hill, which was first report the news of the lawsuit, the complaint requests Hegseth's Signal messages and the messages from other top Trump officials.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit is journalist Jeffrey Stein, the founding editor of the outlet SpyTalk. Stein sought the three months worth of chat records via Freedom of Information Act request and is now taking legal action to obtain them, according to the complaint, which was filed in federal court.
News about my Signalgate iceberg lawsuit for @spytalker.bsky.social: it's OUT!
[image or embed]
— National Security Counselors 🕵 (@nationalsecuritylaw.org) April 25, 2025 at 12:35 PM
"The heads of at least five of the most powerful agencies in the national security community were freely texting over an app that was not approved for sensitive communications and setting it to automatically delete everything they said," Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors, told The Hill. "Since then we've learned that we were right to be worried, thanks to the news about Hegseth's Signal chat with his wife and personal lawyer about bombing plans."
In what's now become known as "Signalgate," The Atlantic revealed last month that its editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg had been accidentally included in a Signal group chat with top administration officials where they discussed forthcoming U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The Atlantic later published messages from the chat.
Members of the chat, dubbed "Houthi PC small group," included Hegseth; National Security Adviser Mike Waltz; Vice President JD Vance; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
The defendants listed in the lawsuit from the National Security Counselors are the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the CIA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The New York Times reported last week that Hegseth had shared information about impending U.S. strikes in Yemen in another Signal group chat included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer on March 15. The outlet cited four unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter.
In response to the Times' reporting, a spokesperson for the Pentagon wrote on April 20: The the newspaper "relied only on the words of people who were fired this week and appear to have a motive to sabotage the secretary and the president's agenda. There was no classified information in any Signal chat, no matter how many ways they try to write the story."
The Times responded a day later saying that it stood by the reporting, that the Pentagon had not denied the existence of the chat, and that the story did not characterize the information in the chat as classified.
In yet another twist, The Associated Press reported Thursday, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the situation, that Hegseth had an internet connection set up in his office at the Pentagon that bypassed government security protocols—also known as a "dirty" line—in order to use Signal on a personal computer.
The AP reported that the advantage of this kind of a line is that a user would be essentially "masked" and not show up as an IP address assigned to the Defense Department, but it would also leave that user vulnerable to hacking.
Speaking of the lawsuit filed by National Security Counselors, McClanahan told The Hill that "this administration has proven again and again that it is allergic to accountability and transparency."
"And we are bringing this case to make sure that they can't just put national security at risk for their own convenience and then destroy all the evidence afterwards," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
About
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy