Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New ethics allegations levied against Interior Department

Six senior Interior Department political appointees are at the heart of "a disturbing pattern of misconduct" involving cozy relationships with their former employees, the Campaign Legal Center alleges in a complaint to the department's inspector general.

At a time when Republicans and Democrats alike say they're troubled by the ethical climate in Washington, particular attention has been focused on Interior since the start of the Trump administration. In December, Secretary Ryan Zinke was forced out amid multiple probes of his real estate dealings and other potential conflicts of interest – the fourth member of Trump's Cabinet to resign under an ethics cloud. And his would-be successor, David Bernhardt, is facing a tough path to Senate confirmation because of his past as an oil and agriculture industry lobbyist.


The Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group focused on government accountability, contends that some of the officials named may have used their positions to give their former work colleagues – now in industries regulated by the department and at conservative think tanks – insider knowledge of Interior activities. Under the White House's "drain the swamp" ethics policies, such officials are supposed to wait two years after their leaving the administration before having any interaction about policy with previous employers.

"This is a big deal," CLC ethics lawyer Delaney Marsco told the Intercept, which provided some of the reporting that led to the complaint. "It not only reveals a pattern of indifference toward ethics at Interior's highest levels, but it also calls into question the true motives of our public servants tasked with the immense responsibility of managing the country's natural resources."

The Interior Department has declined to comment on the specifics. But Bernhardt, who is running the department as acting secretary, announced recently that he had boosted Interior's own watchdog operations in an effort to "dramatically transform a culture of ethics avoidance into one of ethics compliance."


Read More

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less