Dan Friedman, Mother Jones; Trump Has Dropped the Pretense of Ethics
"Mother Jones reported yesterday on various ways that corporations, foreign governments, and random rich people with agendas are giving money and other benefits to the first family—and noted that the president and his kin have largely dispensed with even their first-term pretense of adherence to ethical norms."
Brady Dale, Axios; Trump defies ethics warnings with private meme coin dinner
"The president hosted a highly anticipated "exclusive" dinner for the largest holders of his meme coin, Official Trump, at his golf club in Virginia on Thursday night.
Why it matters: Fight Fight Fight, LLC — a company linked to President Trump's family — sold a digital token that gave anyone in the world a chance to pay for a night of access to the commander-in-chief.
Norman Eisen, Virginia Canter, and
The writers were ethics counsels in the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama White Houses., The New York Times; A Plane From Qatar? C’mon, Man.
"As lawyers responsible in recent White Houses for enforcing the rules against foreign government presents for presidents, we believe Donald Trump is transgressing them in the most brazen of ways. We’re not just talking about his apparent eagerness to accept an airplane valued at about $400 million from Qatar. His crypto entanglements are just as bad — perhaps even worse."
Maggie HabermanEric Schmitt and Glenn Thrush, The New York Times; Trump Is Poised to Accept a Luxury 747 From Qatar for Use as Air Force One
"The Trump administration plans to accept a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane as a donation from the Qatari royal family that will be upgraded to serve as Air Force One, which would make it one of the biggest foreign gifts ever received by the U.S. government, several American officials with knowledge of the matter said.
The plane would then be donated to President Trump’s presidential library when he leaves office, two senior officials said. Such a gift raises the possibility that Mr. Trump would have use of the plane even after his presidency ends.
While a Qatari official described the proposal as still under discussion and the White House said that gifts it accepted would be done in full compliance with the law, Democratic lawmakers and good government groups expressed outrage over the substantial ethical issues the plan presented. They cited the intersection of Mr. Trump’s official duties with his business interests in the Middle East, the immense value of the lavishly appointed plane and the assumption that Mr. Trump would have use of it after leaving office. Sold new, a commercial Boeing 747-8 costs in the range of $400 million."
Sophie Peel , Willamette Week; Former Secretary of State Fagan Seeks to Settle With the Ethics Commission
"Former Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, who resigned in May 2023 after WW revealed she’d signed a $10,000 monthly consulting contract with two of her top campaign donors, is seeking to settle twin cases with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
As first reported by the Salem Statesman-Journal, Fagan agreed last week to pay a $1,600 fine stemming from two incidents that resulted in complaints filed with the OGEC: her consulting agreement with the co-owners of cannabis chain La Mota, and her seeking state reimbursement for some expenses incurred on work-related trips with her children and dog that the commission deemed had “provided a financial benefit to herself.”
The commission concluded, according to its proposed settlement order, that Fagan had violated state ethics laws by “using her position to obtain private employment” with Aaron Mitchell and Rosa Cazares, the principals of the troubled cannabis outfit La Mota and the principals of the LLC with which Fagan signed the contract, Veriede Holding."
MacKenzie Sigalos, Ari Levy, CNBC; Trump dinner for meme coin buyers prompts senators to demand ethics probe
"Senators Adam Schiff and Elizabeth Warren are warning that President Donald Trump’s private dinner with holders of his meme coin may constitute “pay to play” corruption, and are calling for an ethics investigation.
The Democratic senators, from California and Massachusetts, respectively, sent a letter on Friday to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, asking for a probe to determine if President Trump violated federal ethics rules by offering exclusive access to top investors in his $TRUMP coin.
The letter pertains to a promotion, announced on the meme coin’s website on Wednesday, offering the top 220 holders of the token dinner with the president on May 22 at his golf club near Washington, D.C. The coin jumped by 50% in value after the invitation was posted."
CAROLINE CICCONE, The Hill; Justice Barrett has set a new judicial ethics standard — and it’s about time
"Unlike every other federal court, the Supreme Court operates without mandatory ethics rules. The justices alone decide if their conflicts merit recusal, with no obligation to explain their reasoning. This self-policing system creates an accountability void that would be unacceptable in any other branch of government.
However, a recent decision by a member of the court’s conservative supermajority shows us that it doesn’t have to be this way.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett bucked this trend with her recent recusal from Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. Although Barrett provided no public explanation, it’s plausible if not likely that her decision stemmed from her close ties to Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Clinic and personal friendship with one of the case’s legal adviser, Notre Dame law Professor and Federalist Society Director Nicole Stelle Garnett.
This choice reflects the longstanding principle, mostly abandoned by the Roberts Supreme Court, that judges should step aside when personal relationships might bias them, or even create the appearance of impropriety."
SCOTT BAUER AND THOMAS BEAUMONT , AP; Elon Musk hands out $1 million payments after Wisconsin Supreme Court declines request to stop him
"Elon Musk gave out $1 million checks on Sunday to two Wisconsin voters, declaring them spokespeople for his political group, ahead of a Wisconsin Supreme Court election that the tech billionaire cast as critical to President Donald Trump’s agenda and “the future of civilization.”"
BERNARD CONDON , AP; Legal experts say Trump official broke law by saying ‘Buy Tesla’ stock but don’t expect a crackdown
"A week after President Donald Trump turned the White House lawn into a Tesla infomercial for Elon Musk’s cars, a second sales pitch by a U.S. official occurred, this time for Tesla stock.
“It will never be this cheap,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Wednesday. “Buy Tesla.”
Government ethics experts say Lutnick broke a 1989 law prohibiting federal employees from using “public office for private gain,” later detailed to include a ban on ”endorsements.” Although presidents are generally exempt from government ethics rules, most federal employees are not and are often punished for violations, including rebukes like the one Conway got.
As of Friday, no public action had been taken against Lutnick and it was unclear whether he would suffer a similar fate.
“They’re not even thinking of ethics,” said Trump critic and former Republican White House ethics czar Richard Painter of administration officials."
Ivan Pereira, ABC News; Trump's White House Tesla showcase for Musk raises ethics concerns
"President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s controversial showcase of Tesla cars in front of the White House has set off alarms around Washington over what some see as an infomercial for the billionaire’s car company on high-profile government property.
Ethics experts ABC News spoke with are raising concerns that the Tuesday event could blur or even cross the lines of what's considered proper conduct by elected officials."
JAMES LYNCH, National Review; Watchdog Flags Sheldon Whitehouse for Potential Ethics Violation in Backing Bill That Enriched Wife’s Employer
"A watchdog organization is calling for an ethics investigation into Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) for supporting legislation that resulted in nearly $7 million being paid to a firm his wife works for.
The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust filed an ethics complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee Monday requesting an investigation into Whitehouse’s votes on legislation that led to $6.9 million in grants to Ocean Conservancy, an environmentalist group his wife Sandra works for.
“Senator Whitehouse advocated and voted for legislation that led to $6.9 million of taxpayer funds being paid to an organization that his wife works for and receives an income from,” said FACT executive director Kendra Arnold.
“It is this type of circular relationship between a Senator and an organization that lobbies and pays his wife a salary that the public is rightfully fed up with. Congressional rules are in place to ensure our taxpayer dollars are going to serve our nation and that our Senators are not behaving in a manner that would call this into question.”...
Senate ethics rules prohibit a lawmaker from using official actions of obtain financial benefits for themselves or their spouse. They also advise Senators to avoid the appearance of impropriety or conduct that reflects unfavorably on the institution.
Ocean Conservancy has paid Sandra Whitehouse $2.6 million directly or through her consulting firm since 2010, tax records show. The firm has denied that Sandra Whitehouse received compensation from the federal funding her husband voted for."
WBUR; Trump family rakes in profits as President Trump fires ethics watchdog
"The Trump family has made nearly $80 million since the election, and that's not counting the crypto assets they've been pushing. The Trump Organization, now overseen by the president's son Eric Trump, has not barred itself from pursuing deals with foreign companies, as it did during Trump’s first term. President Trump also fired the head of the Office of Government Ethics.
Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Ballhaus joins us to discuss the Trump family's growing fortunes.
This segment aired on February 25, 2025."
Laura Barrón-López , Shrai Popat, PBS News; Trump’s firing of independent watchdogs raises concerns about government fraud and ethics
"In another sweeping move of his second term, President Trump fired more than a dozen inspectors general, the non-partisan watchdogs appointed to protect against abuses of power, waste and mismanagement across federal agencies. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López discussed the impact with Glenn Fine, former inspector general for the Department of Justice."
Eric Lipton, The New York Times; Trump Begins Selling New Crypto Token, Raising Ethical Concerns
"President-elect Donald J. Trump and his family on Friday started selling a cryptocurrency token featuring an image of Mr. Trump drawn from the July assassination attempt, a potentially lucrative new business that ethics experts assailed as a blatant effort to cash in on the office he is about to occupy again.
Disclosed just days before his second inauguration, the venture is the latest in a series of moves by Mr. Trump that blur the line between his government role and the continued effort by his family to profit from his power and global fame. It is yet another sign that the Trump family will be much less hesitant in this second term to bend or breach traditional ethical boundaries.
Mr. Trump himself announced the launch of his new business on Friday night on his social media platform, in between announcements about filling key federal government posts. He is calling the token $Trump, selling it with the slogan, “Join the Trump Community. This is History in the Making!”...
The move by Mr. Trump and his family was immediately condemned by ethics lawyers who said they could not recall a more explicit profiteering effort by an incoming president."
Michel Martin, NPR; The ethical implications of President-elect Trump's call with Justice Alito
"Alito and Trump spoke Tuesday, a day before the president-elect urged the Supreme Court to halt his Jan. 10 sentencing in the New York hush-money case, the justice said in a statement from the court. They did not discuss the case, however, Alito said.
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Donald Trump spoke with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Tuesday, just hours before the president-elect asked the top court to block his sentencing over his New York hush money case. Alito said in a statement that the two of them did not discuss the case or any others involving Mr. Trump or potentially involving him. Gabe Roth joined me earlier to talk about this development, which was first reported by ABC News. Mr. Roth founded Fix the Court. His group advocates for ways to make the federal courts more open and accountable to the public. Good morning. Thanks for joining us.
GABE ROTH: Good morning.
MARTIN: So let me give a picture of the call, as we understand it. Justice Alito said in a statement that one of his former law clerks asked him to take a call from Mr. Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position, in essence, to give him a job reference. What do you make of it?
ROTH: I mean, well, it's obviously an unmistakable breach of protocol. You have an individual and the president-elect, who is petitioning the Supreme Court related to his sentencing in the hush money case, a Supreme Court justice, who, frankly, should know better. This conversation should not have taken place. And someone like Will Levi, the man in question who's looking for a credential, he has plenty of other credentials. He worked for Mike Lee. He could have Mike Lee call. He could - he's worked - he's been a partner in the law. His dad's a former federal judge. His grandfather was the attorney general. So, you know, it doesn't make sense from his perspective, and it's just - this episode shows the justices don't really care about the ethics because they know that no one's going to stop them from doing whatever it is that they want to do.
MARTIN: Have any ethical rules or laws been broken here, to your knowledge?
ROTH: Laws - I don't see any laws having been broken, but, you know, there are certain protocols that if you are a Supreme Court justice, you really don't intermingle with the executive branch or the incoming executive branch. I mean, maybe you attend the State of the Union speech that happens every year, though Justice Alito famously stopped attending that. But generally, the two branches don't intermingle - and especially at a time when President Trump, we know, is going to have all these executive orders coming down the pike whose fate will be decided by the justices. This, to me, just seems like an opportunity for him to have an audience before one of the nine people determining his and his administration's fate in so many of these issues...
It's all self-enforcing and self-policing. So that is really, you know, sort of what the challenge is for people like me and other people who care about the ethics of our highest court is - how do you get the justices to act in a way that is sort of consistent with what most people would believe are their ethical responsibilities?"
Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Alito Spoke With Trump Shortly Before Supreme Court Filing
"Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. spoke with President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday, not long before Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to delay his sentencing following his conviction in New York in a case arising from hush money payments.
Justice Alito said the call was a routine job reference for a former law clerk whom Mr. Trump was considering for a government position.
It was not clear, however, why Mr. Trump would make a call to check references, a task generally left to lower-level aides.
Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, an advocacy group that seeks more openness at the Supreme Court, said the call was deeply problematic given the ethics controversies swirling around the court in general and Justice Alito in particular."
ROSS DOUTHAT AND DAVID FRENCH, The New York Times; ‘This Is the Land of Wolves Now’: Two Columnists Get to the Heart of Biden’s Pardon
"Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation with the Times Opinion columnists Ross Douthat and David French about President Biden’s decision to issue a broad pardon to his son Hunter Biden.
Patrick Healy: Ross and David, you both have written extensively about the rule of law and presidential power. You both have a good sense of what American voters care about. And you both are fathers. So I’m curious what struck you most about President Biden’s statement that he was pardoning his son Hunter Biden.
David French: As a father, I think it would be very, very hard to watch your son go to prison — especially if you have the power to set him free. I can’t imagine the pain of watching Hunter’s long battle with substance abuse and then watching his conviction in court. But in his role as president, Biden’s primary responsibility is to the country and the Constitution, not his family.
As president, this pardon represents a profound failure. Biden was dishonest — he told us that he wouldn’t pardon Hunter — and this use of the pardon power reeks of the kind of royal privilege that is antithetical to America’s republican values...
Ross Douthat: I think it’s important to stress that Biden always kept Hunter close, within the larger aura of his own power, in ways that likely helped his son trade on his dad’s name even as his own life was completely out of control. This pardon is a continuation or completion of that closeness: It’s a moral failure, as David says, a dereliction, but one that’s of a piece with the president’s larger inability to create a sustained separation between his own position and his troubled son’s lifestyle and business dealings and place in the family’s inner circle. A clearer separation would have been better not just for the president and the country, but also for Hunter himself — even if he’s benefiting from it now, at the last."
Ken Bensinger, The New York Times; Trump Holds Up Transition Process Over Ethics Code
[Kip Currier: Incipit (It begins)...]
"President-elect Donald J. Trump has not yet submitted a legally required ethics pledge stating that he will avoid conflicts of interest and other ethical concerns while in office, raising concerns that his refusal to do so will hamper the smooth transition to power.
Mr. Trump’s transition team was required to submit the ethics plan by Oct. 1, according to the Presidential Transition Act.
While the transition team’s leadership has privately drafted an ethics code and a conflict-of-interest statement governing its staff, those documents do not include language, required under the law, that explains how Mr. Trump himself will address conflicts of interest during his presidency.
Since Mr. Trump created his transition team in August, it has refused to participate in the normal handoff process, which typically begins months before the election.
It has missed multiple deadlines for signing required agreements governing the process. That has prevented Mr. Trump’s transition team from participating in national security briefings or gaining access to federal agencies to begin the complicated work of preparing to take control of the government on Jan. 20, 2025."
Lois Beckett, The Guardian; ‘Anticipatory obedience’: newspapers’ refusal to endorse shines light on billionaire owners’ motives
"When two American billionaires blocked the newspapers they own from endorsing Kamala Harris this month, they tried to frame the decision as an act of civic responsibility.
“I think my fear is, if we chose either one, that it would just add to the division,” Patrick Soon-Shiong, the biotech billionaire who owns the Los Angeles Times, said. He emphasised that though some might assume his family is “ultra-progressive”, he is a registered “independent”.
At the Washington Post, which reported that its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, was behind the decision, publisher William Lewis described the retreat from making presidential endorsements as “a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds”.
Veteran journalists and media critics are using a very different phrase to describe Soon-Shiong’s and Bezos’s choice: they’re saying the two billionaires, among the richest men on the entire globe, are performing “anticipatory obedience” to Donald Trump.
Yes, “cowardice” has also been a popular way to describe the choice by the billionaire owners of two of the country’s major newspapers to not to risk angering Trump by allowing their papers to endorse his opponent.
But “anticipatory obedience” is more specific. The term comes from On Tyranny, the bestselling guide to authoritarianism by Timothy Snyder, a historian of eastern and central Europe. The phrase describes, in Snyder’s words, “the major lesson of the Nazi takeover, and what was supposed to be one of the major lessons of the twentieth century: don’t hand over the power you have before you have to. Don’t protect yourself too early.” It’s a way of describing what Europeans did wrong as totalitarians came to power: by “mentally and physically conceding, you’re already giving over your power to the aspiring authoritarian”, Snyder explains."
, The Daily Beast; Ex-WaPo Editor: This Is a Straight Bezos-Trump ‘Quid Pro Quo’
"The Washington Post’s outgoing editor-at-large and longtime columnist has made explosive claims that its owner Jeff Bezos struck a deal with Donald Trump in order to kill the newspaper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris.
Robert Kagan, who resigned from his position on Friday after more than two decades at the publication, told the Daily Beast that Trump’s meeting with executives of Bezos’ Blue Origin space company the same day that the Amazonfounder killed a plan to support Harris was proof of the backroom deal."
