Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

White House lacked top ethics official for 6 months

The top ethics office at the White House was kept vacant for a crucial six months of the Trump administration, and the president's lawyers sought to keep the situation under wraps, a watchdog group reported Tuesday.


The position was filled last month by Scott Gast, who has been an attorney in the White House counsel's office since the start of Trump' tenure. Stefan Passantino left the job in August and is now working for the Trump Organization, handling demands for materials and testimony in congressional investigations.

The half year when the job was vacant coincided with a particularly turbulent time in the West Wing – with a high degree of staff turnover, the climax of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and a midterm election that created new oversight worries once the Democrats took control of the House. The top ethics officer's duties include setting and enforcing government ethics guidelines at the White House that prevent conflicts of interest, and the completion of officials' financial disclosure reports.

President Trump's failure to promptly fill the job "is consistent with his preference to leave important government positions vacant," according to CREW, or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which reported the delay based on results of a Freedom of Information Act request. "Indeed, the president has allowed several agency Inspector General positions to remain vacant for the entire duration of his presidency. Vacancies, however, undermine the authority of acting officials and weaken morale in government offices."

CREW said the record it obtained suggested that the White House was not cooperative with either the Office of Government Ethics or the Government Accountability Office when they sought details of Passantino's decision-making or the delay in replacing him.


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