President Donald Trump and his administration have drawn concerns about corruption with their recent actions. Experts and former officials are alarmed by the administration’s rollback of tools to combat corruption, particularly foreign interference in American politics. This departure from the previous bipartisan support for anti-corruption measures has raised fears of an increase in corrupt practices in the United States and beyond. Some former prosecutors and advocacy groups have criticized the administration’s approach, describing it as a threat to the integrity of the government. Noah Bookbinder, a former federal corruption prosecutor and president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, expressed deep concern, calling the situation an emergency.
Trump’s recent decisions, such as signing an executive order pausing investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, granting a full pardon to Rod Blagojevich, and instructing the dropping of corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, have been seen as emblematic of his stance on corruption cases. These actions have sparked controversy and led to resignations within the Justice Department. The administration’s moves to deprioritize corruption cases, limit the enforcement of laws targeting secret lobbying by foreign governments, and disband units prosecuting large-scale corruption have further fueled concerns about the government’s anti-corruption efforts.
Despite these developments, the White House and the Justice Department have not provided comments on the matter. The administration’s approach to corruption cases, along with its actions undermining existing anti-corruption measures, have raised significant questions about its commitment to combating corruption.
The inspectors general, created by Congress following the Watergate scandal in the 1970s to prevent abuse and corruption in federal agencies, have been a target of President Trump’s actions. Trump has removed 18 inspectors general who investigate potential fraud and abuse within the government. He has also ousted the heads of key offices such as the Office of Government Ethics, responsible for examining financial conflicts of interest among high-ranking officials, and the Office of Special Counsel, tasked with safeguarding whistleblowers in the federal government. These decisions are currently facing legal challenges.
Critics of government corruption express concerns over the Trump administration’s policies, particularly in light of the potential conflicts of interest arising from Trump’s extensive business network, which includes ventures like a cryptocurrency enterprise, and the overseas operations of his advisor, Elon Musk, who also manages companies with significant federal contracts. The administration maintains that Trump separated himself from his real estate business to assume office, opted not to accept a presidential salary, and could have earned more money by remaining in the private sector. Similarly, they assert that Musk, despite his companies holding substantial federal contracts, is adhering to all relevant laws as a government official.
Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group, expressed alarm at the relaxation of enforcement of anti-corruption laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Foreign Agents Registration Act. She likened this to sending a signal of openness to corruption to foreign entities. Meanwhile, Alberto Gonzales, who served as attorney general under President George W. Bush, voiced disappointment over the administration’s apparent de-prioritization of anti-corruption efforts under Trump.
Despite Trump’s longstanding criticism of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, citing its negative impact on U.S. companies abroad, anti-corruption organizations argue that the law has been effective in deterring corrupt practices. Trump’s recent actions to scale back enforcement were met with opposition from advocates who fear that weakening the law could embolden wrongdoers and undermine efforts to combat corruption.
While some conservative voices, like Zack Smith of the Heritage Foundation, defend the administration’s review of corruption laws, others view the temporary enforcement pause as a strategic move to reassess legal interpretations and investigative practices. Republicans have accused Democrats of weaponizing investigations, particularly against Trump, to gain political advantage.
In summary, the Trump administration’s approach to anti-corruption laws and enforcement mechanisms has sparked criticism and debate among various stakeholders, with concerns raised about the potential impact on government integrity and accountability.
An evaluation of recent events and discussions on the next steps to take are necessary and warranted, according to Smith via email. He clarified that this does not imply impunity for wrongdoers but rather emphasizes Attorney General Pam Bondi and her team’s diligent management of resources towards achieving justice effectively. The discontinuation of a specialized team at the Justice Department that pursued corrupt individuals and seized their illicit gains could have detrimental repercussions, warned Alexis Loeb, a former trial lawyer at the department. The cases targeted widespread corruption involving foreign entities funneling unlawfully obtained funds through U.S. establishments with local facilitators. Loeb expressed concerns that this decision might make the U.S. an attractive haven for corrupt foreign officials seeking refuge.
Bondi justified the alterations in enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act by citing heightened priorities such as combating drug cartels and transnational crime with limited resources. The directive limits criminal charges for FARA violations to instances resembling traditional foreign espionage, while emphasizing civil enforcement, regulatory actions, and public education. Critics, including former prosecutors and anti-corruption experts, argue that this move undermines the law’s original intent established pre-World War II to prevent foreign dictators from manipulating U.S. politics through covert propaganda.
The FARA law mandates individuals involved in political undertakings on behalf of foreign entities to disclose their affiliations publicly. Recent prosecutions under the Biden administration targeted Democratic figures for failing to register as foreign agents and engaging in corrupt activities for entities in Turkey, Mexico, and Egypt. Conversely, former President Trump pardoned two allies convicted in FARA cases, alleging political bias in the prosecutions. The Justice Department has persisted in pursuing FARA violations, even among individuals linked to Trump, such as Barry Bennett last year.
An unpaid adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign, and his associate Douglas Watts, were charged with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Both individuals entered into deferred prosecution agreements with the Department of Justice, wherein they admitted to the allegations and agreed to pay fines and comply with other conditions as part of the arrangement for dropping the charges.
Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, recognized the ongoing challenge for every administration in balancing priorities and allocating resources within the Justice Department. He noted that President Trump has prioritized combating drug cartels and securing the border as key objectives. However, Gonzales emphasized that, given the substantial budget of the Justice Department, there should be adequate staffing and resources available for pursuing cases involving drug cartels and instances of corruption.
Gonzales underscored the importance of prosecuting corruption as a crucial tool for the Department of Justice. He highlighted that corruption undermines public trust in the government and its officials, emphasizing that a loss of confidence in the rule of law poses significant risks to society.
