The New Fabio Is Claude; The New York Times, February 8, 2026

 Alexandra Alter , The New York Times; The New Fabio Is Claude

The romance industry, always at the vanguard of technological change, is rapidly adapting to A.I. Not everyone is on board.

"A longtime romance novelist who has been published by Harlequin and Mills & Boon, Ms. Hart was always a fast writer. Working on her own, she released 10 to 12 books a year under five pen names, on top of ghostwriting. But with the help of A.I., Ms. Hart can publish books at an astonishing rate. Last year, she produced more than 200 romance novels in a range of subgenres, from dark mafia romances to sweet teen stories, and self-published them on Amazon. None were huge blockbusters, but collectively, they sold around 50,000 copies, earning Ms. Hart six figures...

Ms. Hart has become an A.I. evangelist. Through her author-coaching business, Plot Prose, she’s taught more than 1,600 people how to produce a novel with artificial intelligence, she said. She’s rolling out her proprietary A.I. writing program, which can generate a book based on an outline in less than an hour, and costs between $80 and $250 a month.

But when it comes to her current pen names, Ms. Hart doesn’t disclose her use of A.I., because there’s still a strong stigma around the technology, she said. Coral Hart is one of her early, now retired pseudonyms, and it’s the name she uses to teach A.I.-assisted writing; she requested anonymity because she still uses her real name for some publishing and coaching projects. She fears that revealing her A.I. use would damage her business for that work.

But she predicts attitudes will soon change, and is adding three new pen names that will be openly A.I.-assisted, she said.

The way Ms. Hart sees it, romance writers must either embrace artificial intelligence, or get left behind...

The writer Elizabeth Ann West, one of Future Fiction’s founders, who came up with the plot of “Bridesmaids and Bourbon,” believes the audience would be bigger if the books weren’t labeled as A.I. The novels, which are available on Amazon, come with a disclaimer on their product page: “This story was produced using author‑directed AI tools.”

“If you hide that there’s A.I., it sells just fine,” she said."

The world heard JD Vance being booed at the Olympics. Except for viewers in the US; The Guardian, February 7, 2026

Bryan Armen Graham  , The Guardian; The world heard JD Vance being booed at the Olympics. Except for viewers in the US

"The modern Olympics sell themselves on a simple premise: the whole world, watching the same moment, at the same time. On Friday night in Milan, that illusion fractured in real time.

When Team USA entered the San Siro during the parade of nations, the speed skater Erin Jackson led the delegation into a wall of cheers. Moments later, when cameras cut to US vice-president JD Vance and second lady Usha Vance, large sections of the crowd responded with boos. Not subtle ones, but audible and sustained ones. Canadian viewers heard them. Journalists seated in the press tribunes in the upper deck, myself included, clearly heard them. But as I quickly realized from a groupchat with friends back home, American viewers watching NBC did not.

On its own, the situation might once have passed unnoticed. But the defining feature of the modern sports media landscape is that no single broadcaster controls the moment any more. CBC carried it. The BBC liveblogged it. Fans clipped it. Within minutes, multiple versions of the same happening were circulating online – some with boos, some without – turning what might once have been a routine production call into a case study in information asymmetry.

For its part, NBC has denied editing the crowd audio, although it is difficult to resolve why the boos so audible in the stadium and on other broadcasts were absent for US viewers. But in a broader sense, it is becoming harder, not easier, to curate reality when the rest of the world is holding up its own camera angles. And that raises an uncomfortable question as the United States moves toward hosting two of the largest sporting events on the planet: the 2026 men’s World Cup and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

If a US administration figure is booed at the Olympics in Los Angeles, or a World Cup match in New Jersey or Dallas, will American domestic broadcasts simply mute or avoid mentioning the crowd audio? If so, what happens when the world feed, or a foreign broadcaster, shows something else entirely? What happens when 40,000 phones in the stadium upload their own version in real time?

The risk is not just that viewers will see through it. It is that attempts to manage the narrative will make American broadcasters look less credible, not more. Because the audience now assumes there is always another angle. Every time a broadcaster makes that trade – credibility for insulation – it is a trade audiences eventually notice."

NBC appears to cut crowd’s booing of JD Vance from Winter Olympics broadcast; The Guardian, February 6, 2026

Tom Lutz , The Guardian; NBC appears to cut crowd’s booing of JD Vance from Winter Olympics broadcast

[Kip Currier: NBC's decision to edit out booing of JD Vance during the Winter Olympics' Opening Ceremony is not surprising, given prior instances of U.S. media editing of similar occurrences, as noted in this Guardian article. But it is nevertheless troubling. NBC is distorting and altering what actually happened, without informing viewers and listeners of its editorial decision-making.

The Opening Ceremony isn't a fictional movie: it's an historical, newsworthy event. As such, alterations to the historical record should not have been made.

Additionally, if a news organization like NBC decides to make changes to news reporting, like removing or suppressing sound for non-technical reasons, it should be transparent about having done so and explain the reasons for such alterations. Trust in news organizations is vital. Actions like sanitization and alterations of news reporting diminish public trust in the accuracy and integrity of news sources and disseminators.

NBCU Academy's website provides information on ethics in journalism. Its first principle "Seek the truth and be truthful in your reporting." is relevant to the editorial decision to edit out the booing of JD Vance:

What are journalism ethics?

Ethics are the guiding values, standards and responsibilities of journalism. At NBCU News Group, the following principles act as the foundation of ethical journalism:

Seek the truth and be truthful in your reporting. Your reporting should be accurate and fair. Ensure that the facts you gathered are verified, sources are attributed and context is provided. Journalists should be bold in seeking and presenting truths to the public, serving as watchdogs over public officials and holding the powerful accountable.

https://nbcuacademy.com/journalism-ethics/

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) also maintains a Code of Ethics. One of its four guiding principles addresses transparency and accountability:

BE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT

Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.

Journalists should:

 

Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.

 

Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

 

Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently.

 

Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

 

Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

 

Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf] 

[Excerpt]

"The US vice-president, JD Vance, was greeted by a chorus of boos when he appeared at the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Milan on Friday, although American viewers watching NBC’s coverage would have been unaware of the reception.

As speedskater Erin Jackson led Team USA into the San Siro stadium she was greeted by cheers. But when the TV cameras cut to Vance and his wife, Usha, there were boos, jeers and a smattering of applause from the crowd. The reaction was shown on Canadian broadcaster CBC’s feed, with one commentator saying: “There is the vice-president JD Vance and his wife Usha – oops, those are not … uh … those are a lot of boos for him. Whistling, jeering, some applause.”

The Guardian’s Sean Ingle was also at the ceremony and noted the boos, as did USA Today’s Christine Brennan. However, on the NBC broadcast the boos were not heard or remarked upon when Vance appeared on screen, with the commentary team simply saying “JD Vance”. That didn’t stop footage of the boos being circulated and shared on social media in the US. The White House posted a clip of Vance applauding on NBC’s broadcast without any boos.

Friday was not the first time there have been moves to stop US viewers from witnessing dissent against the Trump administration. At September’s US Open, tournament organizers asked broadcasters not to show the crowd’s reaction to Donald Trump, who attended the men’s final. Part of the message read: “We ask all broadcasters to refrain from showing any disruptions or reactions in response to the president’s attendance in any capacity.”

Earlier on Friday in Milan, hundreds of people protested against the presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at this year’s Olympics. The US state department has said that several federal agencies, including ICE, will be at the Games to help protect visiting Americans. The state department said the ICE unit in Italy is separate from those involved in the immigration crackdown in the United States."

How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive; The New York Times, February 2, 2026

Jodi Kantor, The New York Times ; How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive

Amid calls to increase transparency and revelations about the court’s inner workings, the chief justice imposed nondisclosure agreements on clerks and employees.

"n November of 2024, two weeks after voters returned President Donald Trump to office, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. summoned employees of the U.S. Supreme Court for an unusual announcement. Facing them in a grand conference room beneath ornate chandeliers, he requested they each sign a nondisclosure agreement promising to keep the court’s inner workings secret.

The chief justice acted after a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices. Trust in the institution was languishing at a historic low. Debate was intensifying over whether the black box institution should be more transparent.

Instead, the chief justice tightened the court’s hold on information.Its employees have long been expected to stay silent about what they witness behind the scenes. But starting that autumn, in a move that has not been previously reported, the chief justice converted what was once a norm into a formal contract, according to five people familiar with the shift."

Key Witness in Alex Pretti Shooting Says Feds Are Totally Ignoring Her; The New Republic (TNR), January 28, 2026

Malcolm Ferguson, The New Republic (TNR); Key Witness in Alex Pretti Shooting Says Feds Are Totally Ignoring Her

"The woman who filmed federal agents shooting and killing Alex Pretti still hasn’t been contacted by the government days later, only fanning accusations of a federal cover-up. 

“Have you been contacted by anyone from the federal government?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Minnesota resident Stella Carlson, whose footage has been crucial in delegitimizing the Trump administration’s lies about Pretti. “FBI?”

“No, no, I have not. I do have a legal team now who are fielding much of that, and I am no longer accessible in those ways,” Carlson replied. 

“I talked to your attorney this morning; she said she had not received any outreach from the FBI or anybody from the federal government,” Cooper said.

“I do not think they have my name yet,” said Carlson, a shocking oversight given that it’s been four days since the shooting. She then expressed that she had zero confidence in a federal investigation into Pretti’s killing."

Türkiye issues ethics framework to regulate AI use in schools; Daily Sabah, January 11, 2026

Daily Sabah; Türkiye issues ethics framework to regulate AI use in schools

"The Ministry of National Education has issued a comprehensive set of ethical guidelines to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in schools, introducing mandatory online ethical declarations and a centralized reporting system aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability and student safety.

The Ethical Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Applications in Education set out the rules for how AI technologies may be developed, implemented, monitored and evaluated across public education institutions. The guidelines were prepared under the ministry’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Document and Action Plan for 2025-2029, which came into effect on June 17, 2025."

The IP Legislation That Shaped 2025 and Prospects for the New Year; IP Watchdog, December 29, 2025

BARRY SCHINDLER , IP Watchdog; The IP Legislation That Shaped 2025 and Prospects for the New Year

"As 2025 draws to a close, the intellectual property ecosystem faces a wave of transformative changes driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and evolving legislative priorities. From sweeping federal proposals aimed at harmonizing AI governance and overriding state laws, to new copyright and media integrity measures designed to address deepfakes and transparency, and finally to renewed momentum behind patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reform, these developments signal a pivotal moment for innovators, rights holders, and policymakers alike. This article explores three critical fronts shaping the future of IP: federal AI legislation and executive preemption, copyright accountability and media integrity, and the year-end outlook for patent reform—each redefining the balance between innovation, protection, and compliance."

A code of ethics for AI in education; The Times of Israel, December 29, 2025

 Raz Frohlich, The Times of Israel; A code of ethics for AI in education

"Generative artificial intelligence is transforming every corner of our lives — how we communicate, create, work, and, inevitably, how we teach and learn. As educators, we cannot ignore its power, nor can we embrace it blindly. The rapid pace of AI innovation requires not only technical adaptation, but also deep ethical reflection.

As the largest education provider in Israel, at Israel Sci-Tech Schools (ISTS), we believe that, as AI becomes increasingly present in classrooms, we must ensure that human judgment, accountability, and responsibility remain at the center of education. That is why we are the first in Israel to create a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence in Education. This is not just a policy document but an open invitation for discussion, learning, and shared responsibility across the education system.

This ethical code is not a technical manual, and it does not provide instant answers for daily classroom situations. Instead, it offers a holistic approach — a way of thinking, a framework for educators, students, and policymakers to use AI consciously and responsibly. It asks essential, core-value questions: How do we balance innovation with privacy? How do we ensure equality when access to technology is uneven? How do we maintain transparency when using AI? And when should we pause, reflect, and reconsider how we use AI in the classroom?

To develop the code, we drew from extensive global research and local experience. We consulted with ethicists, educators, technologists, psychologists, and legal experts — and, perhaps most importantly, we listened to students, teachers, and parents. Through roundtable discussions, they shared real concerns and insights about AI’s potential and its pitfalls. Those conversations shaped the code’s seven guiding principles, designed to help schools integrate AI ethically, transparently, and with respect for human dignity."

60 Minutes episode on brutal El Salvador prison, pulled from air by CBS, appears online; The Guardian, December 23, 2025

Jenna Amatulli , The Guardian; 60 Minutes episode on brutal El Salvador prison, pulled from air by CBS, appears online

"Alfonsi notes the poor conditions in the prison, showing images of half-dressed men with shaved heads all lined up in rows in front of bunks stacked four high. The bunks have no pillows or pads or blankets. The lights are kept on 24 hours a day and detainees have no access to clean water.

Alfonsi pointed to a 2023 report from the state department that “cited torture and life-threatening prison conditions” in Cecot, she said: “But this year, during a meeting with President Bukele at the White House, President Trump expressed admiration for El Salvador’s prison system,” before airing footage of Trump saying: “They make great facilities. Very strong facilities. They don’t play games.”

The segment also talks to Juan Pappier, deputy director at Human Rights Watch, who helped write an 81-page report that detailed Cecot’s pattern of “systematic torture” and found that nearly half the men in the prison did not actually have a criminal history. Pappier said the study was based on information obtained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s own records. Alfonsi confirmed that 60 Minutes independently corroborated Human Rights Watch’s claims.

William Losada Sánchez, a Venezuelan national and former Cecot inmate, also describes to Alfonsi what it was like to get sent to “the island” – a punishment room where prisoners would be sent if they could not comply with being forced to sit on their knees for 24 hours a day.

“The island is a little room where there’s no light, no ventilation, nothing. It’s a cell for punishment where you can’t see your hand in front of your face. After they locked us in, they came to beat us every half hour and they pounded on the door with their sticks to traumatize us,” he said.

The segment briefly touches on Kristi Noem’s visit to Cecot. Pinto claims the Department of Homeland Security secretary did not speak to a single detainee during her visit...

Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator, shared the episode online, saying: “Take a few minutes to watch what they didn’t want you to see. This story should be told.”"

Puerto Rico governor signs bill that critics say will restrict access to public information; AP, December 14, 2025

ÁNICA COTO, AP; Puerto Rico governor signs bill that critics say will restrict access to public information

"Obtaining public information in Puerto Rico has long been difficult, often forcing local media organizations that could afford it to go to court despite the government approving a law in 2019 to allow access to public information held by state agencies."

Banning AI Regulation Would Be a Disaster; The Atlantic, December 11, 2025

Chuck Hagel, The Atlantic; Banning AI Regulation Would Be a Disaster

"On Monday, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that he would soon sign an executive order prohibiting states from regulating AI...

The greatest challenges facing the United States do not come from overregulation but from deploying ever more powerful AI systems without minimum requirements for safety and transparency...

Contrary to the narrative promoted by a small number of dominant firms, regulation does not have to slow innovation. Clear rules would foster growth by hardening systems against attack, reducing misuse, and ensuring that the models integrated into defense systems and public-facing platforms are robust and secure before deployment at scale.

Critics of oversight are correct that a patchwork of poorly designed laws can impede that mission. But they miss two essential points. First, competitive AI policy cannot be cordoned off from the broader systems that shape U.S. stability and resilience...

Second, states remain the country’s most effective laboratories for developing and refining policy on complex, fast-moving technologies, especially in the persistent vacuum of federal action...

The solution to AI’s risks is not to dismantle oversight but to design the right oversight. American leadership in artificial intelligence will not be secured by weakening the few guardrails that exist. It will be secured the same way we have protected every crucial technology touching the safety, stability, and credibility of the nation: with serious rules built to withstand real adversaries operating in the real world. The United States should not be lobbied out of protecting its own future."

New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights; The New York Times, December 4, 2025

Erik Wemple, The New York Times ; New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights

"The New York Times accused the Pentagon in a lawsuit on Thursday of infringing on the constitutional rights of journalists by imposing a set of new restrictions on reporting about the military.

In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, The Times argued that the Defense Department’s new policy violated the First Amendment and “seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done — ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements.”

The rules, which went into effect in October, are a stark departure from the previous ones, in both length and scope. They require reporters to sign a 21-page form that sets restrictions on journalistic activities, including requests for story tips and inquiries to Pentagon sources. Reporters who don’t comply could lose their press passes, and the Pentagon has accorded itself “unbridled discretion” to enforce the policy as it sees fit, according to the lawsuit."

Can You Believe the Documentary You’re Watching?; The New York Times, November 18, 2025

Alissa Wilkinson , The New York Times; Can You Believe the Documentary You’re Watching?

"Like a surging viral outbreak, A.I.-generated video has suddenly become inescapable. It’s infiltrated our social feeds and wormed its way into political discourse. But documentarians have been bracing for impact since before most of us even knew what the technology could do.

Documentaries fundamentally traffic in issues of truth, transparency and trust. If they use so-called synthetic materials but present them as if they’re “real,” it’s not just a betrayal of the tacit contract between filmmaker and audience. The implications are far broader, and far more serious: a century of shared history is in jeopardy.

At a time when the idea of facts and shared reality is assaulted from every side, the turning point has arrived. The stakes couldn’t be higher. And we all need to pay attention."

Congress to send bill to Trump to force disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein files; The Washington Post, November 18, 2025

Kadia Goba

, 

Amy B Wang

 and 

Theodoric Meyer

, The Washington Post; Congress to send bill to Trump to force disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein files

"Congress was poised Tuesday to send a bill to President Donald Trump to force the Justice Department to release files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, overcoming a months-long impasse in the House and quickly dispatching with the issue in the Senate.

Hours after the bill passed the House on a 427-1 vote, the Senate agreed to deem the legislation passed as soon as it arrives from the House. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) offered a motion that received unanimous consent and will require no further action by the chamber."

Trump Ramps Up Pressure on G.O.P. to Thwart Epstein Vote; The New York Times, November 12, 2025

Annie Karni and Devlin Barrett, The New York Times ; Trump Ramps Up Pressure on G.O.P. to Thwart Epstein Vote

[Kip Currier: What and who is in the Epstein files that the Trump administration doesn't want us to see?

Why are Trump 2.0 and the GOP desperate to impede the release of the Epstein files?

What do they fear will be revealed?

What do they think the consequences may be if the American people finally know the contents of these documents?

Does this look like normal behavior if there really is "nothing to see" in these files?

If someone in your own personal or professional life were engaging in these kinds of tactics to hide records would it raise your suspicions?

What can and will be done to attain transparency of these records?]

[Excerpt]

"President Trump and his administration on Wednesday ramped up a pressure campaign on congressional Republicans who are pushing for a full release of the Justice Department’s files about the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, rushing to head off a House vote on the matter."

To Preserve Records, Homeland Security Now Relies on Officials to Take Screenshots; The New York Times, November 6, 2025

Minho Kim , The New York Times; To Preserve Records, Homeland Security Now Relies on Officials to Take Screenshots

[Kip Currier: This new discretionary DHS records policy is counter to sound ethics practices and democracy-centered values.

Preservation of records promotes transparency, the historical record, accountability, access to information, informed citizenries, the right to petition one's government, free and independent presses, and more. The new DHS records policy undermines all of the above.]

[Excerpt]

"The Department of Homeland Security has stopped using software that automatically captured text messages and saved trails of communication between officials, according to sworn court statements filed this week.

Instead, the agency began in April to require officials to manually take screenshots of their messages to comply with federal records laws, citing cybersecurity concerns with the autosave software.

Public records experts say the new record-keeping policy opens ample room for both willful and unwitting noncompliance with federal open records laws in an administration that has already shown a lack of interest in, or willingness to skirt, records laws. That development could be particularly troubling as the department executes President Trump’s aggressive agenda of mass deportations, a campaign that has included numerous accusations of misconduct by law enforcement officials, the experts said.

“If you are an immigration official or an agent and believe that the public might later criticize you, or that your records could help you be held accountable, would you go out of the way to preserve those records that might expose wrongdoing?” said Lauren Harper, who advocates government transparency at the Freedom of the Press Foundation."

Elon Musk launches encyclopedia ‘fact-checked’ by AI and aligning with rightwing views; The Guardian, October 28, 2025

Chris Michael, The Guardian ; Elon Musk launches encyclopedia ‘fact-checked’ by AI and aligning with rightwing views

"Elon Musk has launched an online encyclopedia named Grokipedia that he said relied on artificial intelligence and would align more with his rightwing views than Wikipedia, though many of its articles say they are based on Wikipedia itself.

Calling an AI encyclopedia “super important for civilization”, Musk had been planning the Wikipedia rival for at least a month. Grokipedia does not have human authors, unlike Wikipedia, which is written and edited by volunteers in a transparent process. Grokipedia said it is “fact-checked” by Grok, Musk’s AI chatbot.

Musk said the idea was suggested by the Trump administration’s AI and cryptocurrency czar, David Sacks.

Musk has frequently attacked Wikipedia for citing reporting by the New York Times and NPR, and regularly lambasts what he calls the “mainstream media” in an effort to encourage people to rely on X, formerly Twitter, the social media site he owns and which he has programmed to encourage the domination of conservative and far-right voices, including his own.

Grokipedia’s entries appear to hew closely to conservative talking points. For example, its entry for the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol cites “widespread claims of voting irregularities” – a lie pushed by Donald Trump and his allies to delegitimize Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 – and downplays Trump’s own role in inciting the riot."

Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks; The Washington Post, October 1, 2025

 

Alex Horton

, 

Tara Copp

 and 

Ellen Nakashima

, The Washington Post; Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks

"The Pentagon plans to impose strict nondisclosure agreements andrandom polygraph testing for scores of people in its headquarters, including many top officials, according to two people familiar with the proposal and documents obtained by The Washington Post, escalating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s war on leakers and internal dissent.

All military service members, civilian employees and contract workers within the office of the defense secretary and the Joint Staff, estimated to be more than 5,000 personnel, would be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement that “prohibits the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process,” according to a draft memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg...

More recently, the Pentagon has issued a requirement that reporters covering the military sign an agreement not to solicit or gather any information — even unclassified — that hasn’t been expressly authorized for release, the penalty for which could be press credential revocation. Reporters have until later this month to agree to those terms."

Lawmakers Across the Country This Year Blocked Ethics Reforms Meant to Increase Public Trust; ProPublica, October 1, 2025

Gabriel Sandoval, ProPublica, with additional reporting by Nick Reynolds and Anna Wilder, The Post and Courier; Yasmeen Khan, The Maine Monitor; Lauren Dake, Oregon Public Broadcasting; Marjorie Childress, New Mexico In Depth; Louis Hansen, Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO; Mary Steurer and Jacob Orledge, North Dakota Monitor; Kate McGee, The Texas Tribune; Alyse Pfeil, The Advocate | The Times-Picayune; and Shauna Sowersby, The Seattle Times , ProPublica; Lawmakers Across the Country This Year Blocked Ethics Reforms Meant to Increase Public Trust

"At a time when the bounds of government ethics are being stretched in Washington, D.C., hundreds of ethics-related bills were introduced this year in state legislatures, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures’ ethics legislation database. While legislation strengthening ethics oversight did pass in some places, a ProPublica analysis found lawmakers across multiple states targeted or thwarted reforms designed to keep the public and elected officials accountable to the people they serve.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers tried to push through bills to tighten gift limits, toughen conflict-of-interest provisions or expand financial disclosure reporting requirements. Time and again, the bills were derailed.

With the help of local newsrooms, many of which have been part of ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network, we reviewed a range of legislation that sought to weaken or stymie ethics regulations in 2025. We also spoke to experts for an overview of trends nationwide. Their take: The threats to ethics standards and their enforcement have been growing.

“Donald Trump has been ushering a new cultural standard, in which ethics is no longer significant,” said Craig Holman, a veteran government ethics specialist with the progressive watchdog nonprofit Public Citizen. He pointed to Trump’s private dinner with top buyers of his cryptocurrency and the administration’s tariff deal with Vietnam after it greenlit the Trump Organization’s $1.5 billion golf resort complex; and he said in an email it was “most revealing” that the White House “for the first time in over 16 years has no ethics policy. Trump 2.0 simply repealed Biden’s ethics Executive Order and replaced it with nothing.”