Category: Corruption

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little? – The New York Times

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency claimed to have made over 29,000 federal cuts and slashed billion-dollar contracts, yet federal spending increased rather than decreased under DOGE’s oversight. The group failed to achieve its stated goal of reducing federal spending by $1 trillion before October, contradicting Musk’s core promises about the agency’s mission.

A New York Times analysis of hundreds of federal records found that 28 of DOGE’s top 40 largest savings claims were inaccurate, with the 13 largest claims all proven wrong. Two Defense Department contracts—one for information technology and one for aircraft maintenance—were listed as terminated with claimed savings of $7.9 billion, but both contracts remain active and the savings were fabricated. A U.S.A.I.D. contract with Accenture showed DOGE claiming $312 million in savings by reducing the contract ceiling, despite actual spending patterns making that figure implausible by the original 2033 end date.

Beyond inflated major claims, the overwhelming majority of DOGE’s cuts involved minimal amounts, with 80 percent of contract and grant cancellations claiming savings of $1 million or less. Of approximately 29,000 total cuts reported, 8,611 claimed zero savings, while only 11 claimed savings exceeding $1 billion, demonstrating that DOGE’s disruption of federal operations produced negligible fiscal results.

The analysis demonstrates that DOGE’s extensive disruption of federal programs, grants to small businesses, and foreign aid functioned without corresponding budget reductions. NASA workforce cuts exceeded 20 percent and misinformation campaigns targeted the Social Security Administration, yet these actions produced neither the promised savings nor policy improvements. DOGE’s track record reveals systematic exaggeration masking a failure to deliver on its central mission.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/politics/doge-musk-trump-analysis.html)

US watchdog says paycheck advances no longer subject to lending law | Reuters

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reversed its position on paycheck advance products under Trump’s administration, determining that earned wage advances no longer qualify as consumer loans subject to the Truth in Lending Act. This reversal eliminates disclosure requirements that companies previously had to provide to workers, including information about credit costs and terms. The CFPB stated the advisory opinion offers clarity to industry participants, though it carries no legal binding force.

Under President Joe Biden, the CFPB had issued interpretive guidance in 2024 classifying paycheck advances as equivalent to consumer loans, establishing federal safeguards intended to increase transparency for workers using these products. Companies like digital bank Chime, which offers customers access to up to $500 of their wages interest-free before payday with no mandatory fees, operate in a market that has grown significantly in recent years. Several states including Nevada and Wisconsin have already specified in state law that such products are not loans, but federal clarification had remained absent until Biden’s guidance.

Under Trump, the CFPB has systematically dismantled regulations from the previous administration, framing deregulation as relief for businesses. The agency last month also proposed narrowing civil-rights-era anti-discrimination requirements for the financial industry, following Trump’s executive order to eliminate disparate-impact liability enforcement. This pattern demonstrates Trump’s effort to restrict oversight mechanisms designed to protect workers and consumers from predatory financial practices.

The removal of lending protections for paycheck advances disproportionately affects low-wage workers who depend on early access to earned wages and lack alternative credit sources. Without mandatory disclosures, companies face no obligation to inform workers about the actual financial terms or risks associated with these advances, creating conditions favorable to exploitation. The decision eliminates transparency requirements that served as a baseline consumer protection regardless of whether products were classified as loans.

(Source: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-watchdog-says-paycheck-advances-no-longer-subject-lending-law-2025-12-22/?link_source=ta_first_comment&taid=6949b879e698f200017a2f57&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAO31mdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeDiG48GBBantZYI16IVBsLaHQKJNEK11cXEC22AFjNA8nGSP92bD_N_aUEG4_aem_kJ_apUkt961CfAzlBgEzNg)

Outrage and legal threats: Trump justice department slammed after limited Epstein files release | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Trump’s justice department released a limited, heavily redacted batch of Jeffrey Epstein files on Friday, violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated near-complete disclosure by December 19 with only narrow exemptions for ongoing investigations, national security, and victim protection. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer, announced in advance that the department would withhold documents and release materials piecemeal over weeks, directly contradicting the law’s requirements.

Representative Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, the bipartisan co-authors of the transparency legislation, publicly condemned the release as non-compliant. Khanna stated they are exploring all legal options, including possible impeachment of justice department officials, finding them in contempt of Congress, and referring obstructionists for prosecution. Massie emphasized that future administrations could prosecute current Attorney General Pam Bondi and others, as the transparency act’s obligations do not expire with Congressional sessions.

At least 16 files disappeared from the justice department’s public webpage without explanation, including a photograph showing Trump alongside Epstein, Melania Trump, and Ghislaine Maxwell inside a drawer. House Democrats noted the removal of this image and questioned what else was being withheld, demanding transparency.

Democrats across both chambers condemned the rollout. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Robert Garcia called the release a coverup, with Ocasio-Cortez demanding Bondi’s resignation. The House oversight committee Democrats, led by Garcia and Jamie Raskin, stated Trump’s administration is violating federal law by continuing to conceal facts about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and announced they are examining all legal options.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the release violated both the transparency law’s spirit and letter, pledging to pursue every option to ensure the truth emerges. The justice department defended itself on social media, claiming no politically exposed persons were redacted and pointing to released Clinton photographs as proof of compliance, despite the law’s explicit mandate for comprehensive disclosure absent narrow statutory exceptions.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/20/trump-justice-department-legal-threats-epstein-files-release)

Trump: ‘I Hereby Give Myself $1 Billion’ in Taxpayer Money

President Donald Trump announced at a North Carolina rally that he is demanding the U.S. government pay him $1 billion in settlement of a lawsuit he filed against the Department of Justice. Trump claimed he would give the money to charity, then contradicted himself by suggesting he might keep it.

In October 2024, the New York Times reported Trump had filed administrative claims demanding $230 million from the DOJ as compensation for federal investigations into his activities. The claims, filed in 2023 and 2024, reference the FBI’s search warrant execution at his Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 and the bureau’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

At the rally, Trump stated he is “suing” the United States and simultaneously must “settle” the suit himself as president. He declared, “I hereby give myself $1 billion,” then wavered on whether the funds would go to charity, saying “maybe I shouldn’t give it to charity. Maybe I should keep the money.”

Trump characterized the situation as unprecedented, claiming no president has faced such circumstances. He described the position as “strange” and said he must “negotiate with myself” regarding the settlement terms.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/trump-brags-about-suing-the-government-and-declares-i-hereby-give-myself-1-billion/)

‘This is truly insane’: Trump stuns with eye-popping multi-million-dollar purchase – Raw Story

President Trump personally purchased between $1 million and $5 million in Intel corporate debt between August and October, according to financial disclosures released in November. This transaction occurred simultaneously with the Trump administration’s decision to secure an $11 billion government stake in Intel, giving the U.S. a 10% ownership position in the company.

Trump has also purchased up to $6 million in Boeing corporate bonds, with a separate purchase of $500,000 to $1 million in Boeing bonds made in September, close to Boeing receiving an $877 million Defense Department contract. Since January, Trump has purchased a minimum of $185 million worth of bonds across multiple companies.

The administration characterizes its broader corporate investment strategy as driven by national security interests, committing over $10 billion in taxpayer funds to minority stakes in at least nine companies involved in steel, minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductors, with the majority of deals struck in October and November. Journalist Molly Jong-Fast stated this purchase pattern would constitute “a huge scandal” in a normal administration, while journalist Ryan Grim called the situation “truly insane.”

Trump’s personal investments in companies receiving substantial government contracts and funding directly conflict with federal ethics standards prohibiting self-dealing and conflicts of interest. The lack of mainstream media coverage of these transactions has drawn criticism, with observers noting the administration’s pattern of leveraging taxpayer resources to benefit the president’s personal financial interests.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2674341799/)

Trump Receives FIFA Peace Prize as Justice Drops Bribery Case

Following President Donald Trump's acceptance of FIFA's inaugural “FIFA Peace Prize,” the U.S. Department of Justice announced it would drop an international bribery case related to soccer, raising eyebrows among observers regarding the timing. The award, presented by FIFA President Gianni Infantino, was celebrated as a recognition of Trump's supposed contributions to peace, despite a notable lack of credible accomplishments in that regard. This ceremony took place soon after Trump was snubbed by the Nobel Peace Prize, which went to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado.

The bribery case involved former Fox executive Hernan Lopez and the Argentina-based marketing firm Full Play Group, associated with a larger corruption investigation into FIFA's operations. Lopez had previously been found guilty of facilitating bribes to secure broadcasting rights for South American soccer tournaments. The Justice Department's subsequent move to dismiss the case has sparked suspicions of quid pro quo, particularly given the historical context of Trump's administration's treatment of legal matters.

Prosecutors cited that the dismissal was “in the interests of justice,” which many interpret as a misguided attempt to align with Trump's controversial policies and actions around corruption. This development indicates not just a troubling pattern but a dangerous normalization of political favoritism. Trump's record includes dismantling units within the Justice Department that investigate public corruption, rendering the legal framework increasingly tenuous.

The juxtaposition of Trump receiving a "peace prize" while simultaneously walking away from serious corruption prosecutions exemplifies a chaotic administration more concerned with image than integrity. Additionally, the broader implications of such actions reveal a disconcerting trend toward undermining institutional trust and accountability, compounding the internal and external challenges facing the U.S.

In short, this incident exemplifies the administration’s troubling priorities, as it continues to reward loyalty while sidelining legal accountability, revealing a dangerous erosion of ethical standards in political practice.

(Source: https://www.comicsands.com/trump-fifa-doj-bribery?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAOpRG9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEetak0mC26NZd4OVGItxykKy9HrWqWpMgnKadL5NpKvB26kvnIX0MTIHF1-bs_aem_OfXohv8so-2HnvLtQWCCUw#Echobox=1765563538)

Trump Attacks CNN’s Kaitlan Collins In Vicious Name-Calling Rant

Donald Trump unleashed a vicious name-calling tirade against CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, disparaging her as “Stupid” and “Nasty.” This attack emerged after Collins confronted him at a public event about the rising costs of his controversial ballroom project at the White House. Trump claimed the project, funded by private donations and aimed to enhance the venue’s aesthetic, was under budget and ahead of schedule, despite ongoing scrutiny.

During his rant, Trump also inaccurately referred to Collins as “Caitlin Collin’s” and lashed out at CNN, labeling the network “fake news” and denouncing its leadership as “corrupt.” His remarks did not engage with the substance of her questions, which he seemed to misattribute, showcasing his inability to handle criticism and his propensity for erratic outbursts.

The incident highlights Trump’s long-standing animosity towards Collins, a frequent target of his verbal assaults due to her journalistic rigor and critical coverage of his administration. Collins had previously reported on aspects of the ballroom project, including its increasing size and the architect changes, raising concerns about transparency in Trump’s spending practices.

Trump’s combative stance towards the press serves to reinforce an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation aimed at journalists who dare question his actions. This particular episode reflects a broader trend of an authoritarian approach, undermining the role of the media in a democratic society.

Overall, Trump’s behavior towards Collins is emblematic of his disdain for accountability and the press, revealing how personal grievances can often overshadow legitimate inquiries from journalists.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-attacks-cnns-kaitlan-collins-in-vicious-name-calling-rant/)

Trump Receives FIFA Peace Prize Amid Controversy and Criticism

Donald Trump has been awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, a development that many view as an effort by the soccer organization to boost his fragile ego. The prize was presented during the World Cup draw in Washington, an event that Trump had anticipated since FIFA’s announcement of the award just weeks prior. This prize comes after Trump’s previous disappointment at being overlooked for the Nobel Peace Prize.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino personally presented the award to Trump, expressing support for his supposed contributions to peace. Critics note the absurdity of a peace prize being awarded to a figure who has been widely criticized for his divisive rhetoric and policies.

Trump touted his acceptance of the award, but the timing and nature of it sparked further debate about his relationship with FIFA and Infantino. It raises questions about the validity of an award granted in part to satiate political ambitions and create positive media coverage for Trump as he prepares for the upcoming World Cup co-hosted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The ties between Trump and FIFA have been emphasized through Infantino’s regular appearances with Trump at public events, showcasing a concerning closeness that many fear undermines the integrity of the sports organization. The FIFA president has gone as far as to validate Trump’s leadership style, ignoring the broader implications of endorsing someone frequently linked to authoritarianism.

This decision to award Trump a peace prize, particularly given his controversial legacy, is not only seen as a farce but as a troubling reflection of modern political alignments within influential global institutions like FIFA. The implications of such an endorsement cannot be ignored as the world awaits the next chapter of international competition in the face of a divisive political landscape.

(Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/05/trump-fifa-peace-prize/87589592007/)

US Institute of Peace Renamed for Trump After Administrations

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) has been renamed to honor President Donald Trump despite his administration’s earlier efforts to weaken the organization. This change comes just before a peace agreement signing ceremony involving Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo at the USIP’s Washington, D.C., headquarters. The State Department promoted this new naming as a reflection of what they termed Trump’s status as “the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history.”

Prior to the renaming, Trump’s administration effectively dismantled the USIP, which was established by Congress in 1984 to facilitate conflict resolution. The administration proposed eliminating federal funding for the institute in its budget request and took actions to control its assets, leading to legal disputes. In a controversial move, they dismissed most of the USIP’s board, resulting in employee terminations and claims of an illegal armed takeover of the organization.

George Foote, representing former USIP leadership, criticized the renaming as “adding insult to injury,” highlighting that a federal judge deemed the government’s takeover illegal. He asserted that rightful ownership will eventually restore the USIP to its original mission. Another former official remarked on the irony of Trump attaching his name to an institution he had significantly harmed.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly defended the name change, brandishing USIP as a “bloated, useless entity” prior to Trump’s involvement. In her statement, she lauded the new title as a symbol of effective leadership that purportedly led to significant global peace efforts during Trump’s presidency.

The controversial rename raises pressing questions about the integrity and future of the USIP, as those opposing Trump’s actions emphasize the dissonance between the institute’s mission and its current status under the administration’s influence.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/03/politics/us-institute-of-peace-renamed-trump)

Trump to Roll Back Fuel Economy Standards, Threatening Environment

President Donald Trump is preparing to announce a substantial rollback of national fuel economy standards this Wednesday at the White House, aiming to weaken the environmentally-focused regulations established during President Joe Biden’s administration. The proposed changes by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) include lowering the fuel-efficiency requirements for vehicles slated for 2022 to 2031, a move that contradicts efforts to lower emissions and reduce gasoline consumption.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy previously ordered NHTSA to rescind Biden-era standards and ceased penalties for automakers that fail to meet fuel economy targets. This rollback is positioned as a strategy to alleviate production costs for companies, such as Ford and General Motors, while simultaneously reversing a 64 billion gallon fuel consumption reduction that was projected under the previous rules.

Critics note that Trump’s changes undermine essential climate policies and public health measures. The previous fuel-efficiency standards were estimated to deliver net benefits of $35.2 billion for drivers and substantially curtail emissions, raising serious ethical concerns over environmental degradation as the administration pivots toward fossil fuel interests, evidenced by other deregulatory actions involving electric vehicle tax credits and state authority over emissions.

With the rollback, officials indicate the new regulations will likely lead to a decrease in the price of new vehicles, potentially saving consumers as much as $1,000. However, the long-term consequences include heightened carbon emissions and a failure to meet climate goals, raising alarm among environmental advocates and countering global progress on reducing fossil fuel reliance.

This rollback signifies a broader trend within the Trump administration to prioritize corporate interests over environmental protections, despite ongoing warnings from experts about the dire implications of climate inaction.

(Source: https://ground.news/article/trump-administration-to-propose-significant-rollback-in-fuel-economy-standards-report)

1 2 3 … 37