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

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The Momnibus Act was previously known as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, but the word 'Black' has been removed from the title and appears only once across the latest package.

Emily Scherer for The 19th

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The word “Black” has been almost completely removed from a package of bills that have long been viewed as Congress’ main legislative vehicle to address the Black maternal health crisis, frustrating some advocates who feel Black women are being erased from the policy.

The key change this year is the title. The Momnibus Act — filed in mid-March — was called the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act in 2023; before that it was the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020. None of the previous packages, which were championed by Democrats, have been enacted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Never Intended To Be Just

U.S. President Donald Trump on May 22, 2026 in Suffern, New York.

(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Trump Never Intended To Be Just

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.

Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less