Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Latest House probe of Trump is about his waiving ethics rules he set for his people

The chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee is again challenging President Trump over his campaign promise to combat public corruption and "drain the swamp" in Washington.

With the president already refusing to cooperate in a score of investigations by congressional Democrats, a showdown that could precipitate a constitutional showdown or impeachment, this new spat's importance may well get overlooked. But the regulation of the revolving door between government and business is of prime concern to ethics watchdogs.


In a letter sent this week to the White House and 24 federal agencies, Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings asked for information about the administration's use of waivers to permit political appointees to work on matters they were involved in before entering government, which is normally against the rules.

That's because Trump himself signed an executive order shortly after taking office instituting a two-year ban on political appointees being involved in matters they worked on before entering the federal government. The order, however, allows the president to waive the restriction. A few months after it was signed, the Office of Government Ethics issued a directive requiring the White House and all agencies to provide documents about the ethics waivers that have been granted.

Some of that information is posted on the White House website but Cummings said not all of the required information has been made public – including who signed the waivers, when they were signed and how long they last. Also, not all of the employees who received the waivers are listed separately in some cases.

"Although the White House committed to providing information on ethics waivers on its websites, the White House has failed to disclosure comprehensive information about the waivers to the public," Cummings wrote.


Read More

Hand placing VOTE sticker on shirt

Hand placing VOTE sticker on shirt

Photo provided

The Latino Vote Keeps Changing. Why Do We Keep Calling It a Realignment?

After the 2024 presidential election, the headlines suggested that Latino voters were moving toward the Republican Party. Donald Trump’s gains were interpreted as evidence of a possible political realignment, particularly among working-class Latino voters and younger men.

Two years later, the story has reversed. Latino voters, we are told, are returning to the Democrats.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller

President Donald Trump departs a roundtable discussion on cybercrime with White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller (R) in the East Room of the White House on October 21, 2026, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Trump’s Elevation of Stephen Miller Proves His Promise to Work With Democrats Is a Farce

In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday’s sweeping midterm election losses, a chastened President Donald Trump struck an unusually conciliatory tone, signaling a willingness to work with Democrats. But the spirit of bipartisanship proved fleeting.

By forcing out Susie Wiles and elevating Stephen Miller to White House Chief of Staff, Trump has delivered a definitive, defiant message to the American electorate: the era of uncompromising grievance and division isn't over—it is being supercharged.

Keep ReadingShow less
economics graph on blackboard

economics graph on blackboard

Getty Images

What Post-1971 Supply-side Economics Has Done to Veterans

Post-1971 supply-side economics—often referred to as "trickle-down economics" or "Reaganomics” fundamentally transformed the relationship between the federal government and military veterans. The year 1971 marked the end of the Bretton Woods system, the closing of the gold window, and a pivot toward neoliberal economic frameworks that prioritized deregulation, sweeping tax cuts, and aggressive federal deficit reduction via domestic spending cuts.

For veterans, who had previously benefited from the expansive, New Deal-style social investments of the original G.I. Bill, this macroeconomic paradigm shift led to four distinct structural consequences:

Keep ReadingShow less
Bank sign
The bank of ornate classical columns and facade
Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash

A Bank Account Should Not Come with a Political Litmus Test

The ongoing appetite for "debanking"—pressuring financial institutions to cut off customers because of who they are, what they believe, or with whom they associate—should concern everyone. Why? Because in the end, anyone can become an easy target.

One pressure point has been protests against private banks whose customers are companies who build or operate immigration detention facilities under contracts with the Trump administration. The Boston area saw such protests earlier this year, and there have been others.

Keep ReadingShow less