Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Corruption and voter suppression leave a paper trail

Opinion

Corruption and voter suppression leave a paper trail

"Americans are confronted each day with corruption," writes Austin Evers.

Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images

Evers is executive director American Oversight, an ethics watchdog focused on the Trump administration.

Americans are confronted each day with corruption. It blares from the Trump administration and many state governments. Public evidence alone helps explain why Americans feel that the system is rigged and that corporate and shadowy interests write policy to entrench their power at the expense of regular people. It is seen as politics as usual, a contest mediated through inane and exasperating punditry.

But in reality, the corruption is often starker, spelled out in black and white, in ways that are hard to write off. And when exposed it can be truly shocking — and can break Americans from viewing it as routine.


For that reason, open records laws should be elevated as crucial tools for making corruption resonate. My organization specializes in using such laws to expose primary-source evidence of corruption. But more organizations advocating against governmental misconduct or special interests should use those tools to make their arguments tangible.

The three years of the Trump administration have revealed the power of such tangible evidence, a notable recent example being the summary transcript of the president's call with his Ukrainian counterpart at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. The release of damning text messages exchanged by State Department officials regarding President Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens very likely had a greater effect on the poll numbers than secondhand reports would have.

And it's not just Trump. The paper trail from administration agencies has also revealed his Cabinet officials' self-dealing, bias and aloofness. After Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson steadfastly claimed he had nothing to do with the purchase of a $31,000 dining set for his office, we uncovered documents showing he and his wife were, in fact, involved in the selection. Though Carson was recently cleared of legal "wrongdoing," his lies stand. And over at the EPA, Administrator Scott Pruitt found it impossible to stay in office after American Oversight and others used open records requests to show profligate spending on unnecessary office upgrades and personal errands.

Just as receipts can reveal misuse of public resources, calendars that show how Cabinet secretaries spend their time reveal their priorities better than press releases. We have litigated to obtain the calendars of many Trump officials, and in 2017 we exposed how Pruitt had spent his first year in office catering exclusively to regulated industries, ignoring environmental groups or vulnerable constituencies. The release of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao's calendars revealed how she has turned her agency into a Friends of Mitch McConnell operation.

The paper trail also gives texture to the way the administration's anti-immigrant policies take shape in real life, especially when coupled with abuses of power. For example, emails we uncovered show that in 2017 Kris Kobach, then the Kansas secretary of state, attempted to use his connections at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to find out the immigration status of nearly 300 residents of neighboring Nebraska. Think about that: He was shopping an unverified list of suspected undocumented immigrants to the deportation authorities. We also uncovered documents — including emails that show immigration officials cutting a question that would have allowed asylum-seekers to avoid having to wait in Mexico if they feared for their safety — that demonstrate how the administration's immigration policies are designed to close America's doors.

The success of open-records requests and litigation against the Trump administration points to the promise of the tactic elsewhere. Too often, coalitions fighting for democracy reform and voting rights engage in battles at the policy level, issuing dueling legislative proposals and organizing opposition to voter-suppression measures, and do not invest in exposing the paper trail left behind by opponents. But when evidence comes out that shows the inner workings of those anti-voter campaigns, the results are explosive.

Consider the files of Thomas Hofeller, which detailed gerrymanderingefforts in North Carolina as well as the partisan motivations of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. As noted in the "Corruption Consultants" report by the Center for American Progress, consultants' and officials' own public statements exposed the political motivations of North Carolina's 2013 voting law and cut down claims the law was merely about preventing fraudulent voting.

Those comments, along with incredible documents that exposed the law's discriminatory intent, drove a panel of federal judges to conclude North Carolina Republicans engaged in voter suppression with "surgical precision." Many already "knew" about the intent behind redistricting efforts, but the shock of seeing it in black and white helped make the jump from common-sense reasoning to irrefutable evidence.

Open-records laws are citizen statutes; any organization operating in this space can utilize them to obtain more evidence like that. And they should. American Oversight recently launched an initiative to add open-records capacity to the voter-suppression fights in Florida, Georgia and Texas, with more states on the horizon. In addition to uncovering evidence of corruption, our hope is that other organizations — local and national — will see the value of open-records work to expose the misconduct and misguided motivations of opponents.

Bad actors aren't just making bad policy; they're leaving behind records that often reveal corrupt intentions. And Americans should see that corruption in black and white.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less