Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Warren expands her anti-corruption plan to address more than Trump

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has unveiled a 34-point plan to tackle corruption in Washington.

Sean Rayford/Getty Images

Elizabeth Warren on Monday unveiled a significant expansion of her plan to improve the behavior of public servants and root out Washington corruption.

It was the latest detailed set of policy prescriptions from the Massachusetts senator, who has seen her standing in the top tier of Democratic presidential hopefuls solidify in recent weeks — a signal that the frail state of government ethics is guaranteed to have a place among the issues being addressed in the 2020 campaign.

"Make no mistake about it: The Trump administration is the most corrupt administration of our lifetimes," Warren wrote in a post on Medium that's now part of her campaign website. "But these problems did not start with Donald Trump. They are much bigger than him — and solving them will require big, structural change to fundamentally transform our government."


While anti-corruption proposals are not new to Warren's expansive policy-rich campaign platform, her new, broad plan for reform addressing all three branches of the federal government builds on a relatively narrow array of things she'd previously promised to tackle if elected.

The senator has previously promised to press for legislation setting a lifetime ban on lobbying by former members of Congress, requiring presidents and presidential candidates to release their tax returns and implementing a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

Monday's announcement details more than 30 additional proposals related to increasing transparency and accountability, restricting lobbying, airing out financial conflicts of interest and strengthening government ethics. Warren asserted it would be "the most sweeping set of anti-corruption reforms since Watergate."

Among the proposals:

  • Curtail insider trading in Congress by tightening regulations on political intelligence firms.
  • Ban government officials from trading individual stocks while in office.
  • Install limits on when lobbyists may take on government roles.
  • Require more detailed public disclosure of financial activities and potential conflicts of interest by federal judges.
  • Impose a tax on entities that spend more than $500,000 a year on lobbying.
  • Establish a new government office to investigate ethics violations.

Several of the proposals are already included in HR 1, the sweeping campaign finance regulation, election administration and ethics overhaul bill passed by the House this spring but sidelined indefinitely in the GOP Senate — even though it's cosponsored by every Democratic senator. That means that, on paper at least, five of Warren's rivals already support much of what she's proposed: Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Michel Bennet.

Throughout her plan, Warren cites Trump and his administration as some of the worst offenders — terming the president "a walking conflict of interest" — while also making clear her view that the problem predates him and is bigger than him.

Corruption is "at the root of the major problems we face as a democracy," Warren wrote, and most be addressed early in the next administration because otherwise all the other top-of-mind public policy challenges — climate change, health care, gun control and education among them — will remain impossible to tackle.

"I believe that we can root out corruption in Washington. I believe we must make big, structural changes that will once again restore our trust in government by showing that it can work for all of us," Warren said.

The expanded platform was to be the topic of a speech Monday night in New York, near the site of the former Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, where a fire 108 years killed nearly 150 workers and led to a many of the workplace safety reforms of the 20th century.

Trump posted a series of tweets on Monday that, while not rebutting the Warren plan by name, took issue with his political opponents for suggesting he's conflicted by his business interests.

"Democrats are trying to build a case that I enrich myself by being President," he tweeted. "Good idea, except I will, and have always expected to, lose BILLIONS of DOLLARS for the privilege of being your President - and doing the best job that has been done in many decades."



Read More

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response to U.S. President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on February 24, 2026 in Williamsburg, Virginia.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response to U.S. President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on February 24, 2026 in Williamsburg, Virginia.

Getty Images, Mike Kropf

Three Questions Linger After State of the Union Speech

Anyone tuning into the State of the Union expecting responsible governance was sorely disappointed. What they got instead was pure Trumpian spectacle.

All the familiar elements were there: extended applause lines, culture-war provocation, even self-congratulation, praising the U.S. hockey team and folding its victory into a broader narrative of national resurgence. The whole thing was show business, crafted for reaction rather than reflection, for clips rather than consensus.

Keep ReadingShow less
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