Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congressman calls for repeat ethics investigation into FEC chairwoman

Ellen Weintraub

A 2017 investigation of FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub for potentially unethical behavior determined she had not violated federal rules.

Paul Morigi/Getty Images

This article has been updated following an interview with Weintraub.

Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub has been accused of ethical violations that had been previously leveled — and dismissed — two years ago.

In a series of tweetson Thursday, Weintraub responded to a letter sent that same day by Rep. Rodney Davis, ranking member of the House Administration Committee, requesting an investigation into Weintraub for potential violations of federal ethics regulations.

"It's a retread on a complaint made two years ago by a Koch Brother-funded group," Weintraub told The Fulcrum on Friday afternoon. The inspector general's office looked into it and didn't find any evidence. It's the same stuff all over again."

Davis, a Republican from Illinois, outlined three reasons he believes FEC Inspector General Christopher Skinner should investigate Weintraub:

  1. Using government time and official FEC resources to publish her opinions on political matters.
  2. Discussing issues outside the purview of the FEC in national media appearances.
  3. Refusing to recuse herself from matters involving President Trump, despite a perceived bias against him and "apparent conflict of interest."

"I believe that this pattern of behavior is unbecoming of the FEC Chair and may have possibly violated ethics regulations that we all as federal employees must abide by," Davis wrote.

Weintraub dismissed Davis complaint, noting his letter did not cite any laws that were being broken.

"I'm a public official and I make public statements. It's my job to speak out on issues about the integrity of our elections. To suggest otherwise is nuts," she said.

Two years ago, Weintraub, then a commissioner but not yet chairwoman, was investigated for similar reasons after the conservative group Cause of Action Institute filed a complaint with the FEC's Office of Inspector General. The 2017 investigation found no evidence that Weintraub had violated ethical standards.

On Twitter, Weintraub responded to this latest investigation request by recycling her statement from the first incident: "It is absolutely within my official duties as a federal election official to comment publicly on any aspect of the integrity of federal elections in the United States. I will not be silenced."

Davis acknowledges in his letter that some of the issues he points to were previously assessed in the 2017 investigation, but he believes "they warrant reexamination."

During the last investigation, for instance, a permanent inspector general was not in place at the FEC. (Skinner was named to the position in July.) Davis also noted that the previous inspector general report did not include interviews with all of the commissioners at the time. In Davis' view, the report "lacked a clear legal basis" as well.

And since the last investigation, Weintraub has "continued her pattern of blatant partisan behavior under the guise of her official duties as FEC Chair," Davis wrote.

"And oh my gosh, I go on CNN sometimes. Some of this stuff is just silly," Weintraub said.

An FEC spokesman said the commission does not have information on how the inspector general will move forward and declined to comment further on the situation. The inspector general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether an investigation into Weintraub will be opened.


Read More

When Secrecy Becomes Structural

U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House February 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

When Secrecy Becomes Structural

Secrecy is like a shroud of fog. By limiting what people can see and check for themselves, the public gets either a glimpse (or nothing at all), depending on what gatekeepers decide to share. And just as fog comes in layers, so does withholding: one missing document, one delayed detail, one “not available” that becomes routine.

Most adults understand there are things that shouldn’t be shown. Lawyers can’t reveal case details to people who aren’t involved. Police don’t release information during an active investigation. Doctors shouldn’t discuss your medical history at home. The reason is simple: actual harm can follow when sensitive information is revealed too early or to those who shouldn’t be told.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Trump, the State of the Union is delusional

U.S. President Donald Trump, with Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson looking on, delivers his State of the Union address during a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration's tariff strategy and amid a U.S.


(Getty Images)

For Trump, the State of the Union is delusional

State of the Union speeches haven’t mattered in a while. Even in their heyday, they were only bringing in 60-plus million viewers, and that’s been declining substantially for decades. They rarely result in a post-speech bump for any president, and according to Gallup polling data since 1978, the average change in a president’s approval rating has been less than one percentage point in either direction.

To be sure, this is good news for President Trump. He should hope and pray this State of the Union was lightly watched.

Keep ReadingShow less
The spectacle of Operation Epic Fury
A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 02, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

The spectacle of Operation Epic Fury

The U.S. and Israel’s joint military campaign against Iran, which rolled out under the name Operation Epic Fury, is a phrase that sounds more like a summer action film than a real‑world conflict in which people are dying. The operation involves massive strikes across Iran, with U.S. Central Command reporting that more than 1,700 targets have been hit in the first 72 hours. President Donald Trump described it as a “massive and ongoing operation” aimed at dismantling Iran’s military capabilities.

This framing matters. When leaders adopt language that emphasizes spectacle, they risk shifting public perception away from the gravity of war. The death of Iran’s supreme leader following the bombardment, for example, was a world‑altering event, yet it unfolded under a banner that evokes adrenaline rather than anguish.

Keep ReadingShow less
Speak Now or Forever War

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick (C along fence) listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a visit to the Fort Bragg U.S. Army base on February 13, 2026 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Getty Images, Nathan Howard

Speak Now or Forever War

Trump may have just started the next forever war. If you were a casual listener of last week’s State of the Union, you’d have heard the president offer some forceful words about Iran without mentioning he had already amassed an armada outside Iran so big it is the largest show of U.S. naval power in the Middle East since Iraq. Only a few days later, against the counsel of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, despite having neither a clear rationale nor a plan for involvement, let alone presenting one to Congress or the American public, the U.S. began reckless and illegal strikes on Iran. For weeks prior, rumors had been circulating that Trump was considering a fully fledged, enduring conflict. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s response on X summed up what many of us were thinking: “Americans do not want to go to war with Iran!!!…And they voted for NO MORE FOREIGN WARS AND NO MORE REGIME CHANGE.” None of this registered with a President who had already bombed seven countries since returning to power. With Trump and Hegseth so hellbent on hellfire at our expense, we all must speak up to stop them. That’s why they’re coming after our freedom of speech–and starting with the troops on purpose.

The U.S. military’s weaponization of poverty presents a financial incentive to stay in line. By design, the military is one of the most foolproof ways in America to get education, healthcare, a steady paycheck, and even citizenship. In return, young servicemembers risk their lives while oligarchs profit. This is the military industrial complex, and it is not a secret. As long as Trump can extract and exploit, he doesn’t see a cost to war. He’s a draft dodger who has called fallen American soldiers ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’ and “finds the notion of military service difficult to understand, and the idea of volunteering to serve especially incomprehensible.” Those of us who have served or are serving see it differently. But unfortunately, when the consequences can be cuts to rank, pay, or benefits, dishonorable discharge, court-martial, or getting deported, what 18-year-old enlisted kid is prepared to disobey or speak out against the officers above them?

Keep ReadingShow less