If you’re not corrupt, you generally don’t have to say certain things.
Let’s take a look at ex-NYC mayor Eric Adams who, while dealing with plenty of corruption investigations and allegations, protested his innocence by saying stuff no one who wasn’t hip deep in corruption would ever say:
“Investigators have not indicated to us the mayor or his staff are targets of any investigation,” the mayor’s chief counsel, Lisa Zornberg, said in a statement. “As a former member of law enforcement, the mayor has repeatedly made clear that all members of the team need to follow the law.”
This isn’t something that’s nuanced or complex. Most people in any supervisory position never need to tell their subordinates to not break the law. It’s the lowest of low bars that doesn’t even deserve comment, much less “repeatedly.” On the rare occasion that someone does break the law, you may want to reinforce this concept.
But this statement suggests a lot of people working for the mayor really wanted to break the law, but were perhaps occasionally deterred by the “repeated” reminder that breaking the law wasn’t acceptable. Not that this repeated reminder worked. Plenty of people in Mayor Adams’ orbit were subjects of law enforcement investigations. So, this exhortation seems less like a deterrent and more like the laziest form of plausible deniability.
President Trump has repeatedly promised his top administration officials pardons before he leaves office, according to people who have heard his comments.
“I’ll pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval,” Trump said in a recent meeting to laughs, according to people with knowledge of the comments. That radius appears to be expanding as the president repeats the line. Another person who met with Trump earlier this year said the president quipped about pardoning anyone who had come within 10 feet.
In one conversation with advisers in the dining room next to the Oval Office last year, Trump said he would host a news conference and announce mass pardons before he left office, some of the people said.
It’s not just a question of “why would you say that?” It’s also a question of “why would you feel the need to say that?”
We already know Trump isn’t afraid to use his pardon powers to reward supporters and financial benefactors. His mass pardon of January 6 insurrectionists was startling in its transparent self-interest. Trump now appears to be offering pre-emptive pardons, which is only going to encourage his officials to break more laws and engage in more open corruption, now that they’ve been assured they’ll never be punished for it.
“The Wall Street Journal should learn to take a joke, however, the President’s pardon power is absolute,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said.
That deflection is just as damning as Trump’s own statements. Even if he’s just making a joke (something that’s almost impossible to believe since Trump seems incapable of humor, much less self-deprecating humor), it’s an incredibly stupid joke to make when he’s already abused this power to pardon a group of people who committed federal crimes in hopes of illegally elevating him to the position of president despite losing the election.
This “it’s just a joke” deflection is further undercut by the press secretary’s next words: Trump’s “pardon power is absolute.” That says that even if Trump isn’t joking, these pardons are going to happen and no one can stop them from happening.
That’s what really matters here. Trump has nothing to fear from anyone. The Supreme Court has already blessed a lot of his theories of absolute executive power. The only thing stopping Trump from pardoning people who commit crimes on his behalf is shame, and he’s entirely devoid of that human quality.
We can already see the scorched earth this political party will leave behind if it’s forced from office in the next election. All we can hope is that Trump fails to follow through with his pardon threat, allowing a bunch of loyalists to be punished for his actions. And that end result is all but assured. Trump has fired plenty of loyalists and yet still has people willing to be thrown under the bus for the cause. Wait, that’s not entirely accurate. Trump is surrounded by loyalists who are willing to ask where each bus is located and when they should lie down under the wheels.
Of course, this is all win-win for Trump. If he doesn’t pardon anyone, those punished for enabling him will be treated as martyrs. And if he does wipe the slate clean as he exits the Oval Office, he’ll once again escape the accountability that is supposed to come with the position. Given what’s been said by Trump, I’d expect his underlings to amp up their illegal efforts. When you have nothing to lose but your soul, it makes sense to sell it while it’s still a seller’s market.
With all that RFK Jr. has done, and failed to do, as the Secretary of HHS, he should be terribly busy cleaning up mess after mess. The measles outbreak that is going to cause America to lose its elimination status is still ongoing and on pace to quadruple last year’s case total, so he could work on that. He could be busy finding a CDC Director, a position left vacant well beyond the federally mandated limit of 210 days. Or a Surgeon General. Or he could be working to undo the harms and effects of the misinformation that he and Trump have been pumping into the media ecosystem.
But it seems that, despite reporting that the White House wants to rein him in so he doesn’t get the GOP murdered in the midterms, Kennedy has instead decided its time to make history as the first sitting cabinet secretary to host his very own podcast.
The show, titled “The Secretary Kennedy Podcast,” will launch next week and feature Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine crusader who has reshaped the country’s health policy, in conversation with doctors, scientists and agency staff, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials told the AP ahead of the launch. In the teaser video, in a slick HHS-branded studio with ominous music playing in the background, Kennedy bills it as a new way to expose corruption and lies that have made Americans sick.
“We’re going to name the names of the forces that obstruct the paths to public health,” Kennedy says in the nearly 90-second clip.
We all know where this is going. Before entering into government, Kennedy hosted his own podcast previously. It covered such sane topics as:
Google and Mind Control
Vaccines During Pregnancy (featuring anti-vaxxer Lyn Redwood)
EMR, Cell Phones, & Cancer
IRS: Pro-Pharma Anti-Health
Censorship & Twitter Files with Matt Taibbi
So, you know, a conspiracy theory podcast, featuring all of Kennedy’s favorite topics. Anyone looking at this podcast as a source of information is clinically insane. This is just another megaphone through which to growl his anti-science, anti-medicine conspiratorial views. That he is making history in doing so when he has far better things he could be doing is simply the rotten cherry on top of this shit sundae.
Tyler Burger, HHS digital communications manager and the producer of the new podcast, said while Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary has a podcast, officials believe Kennedy’s will be the first to be hosted by a sitting cabinet secretary.
“We’re kind of bringing podcasting into the government as an official form and arm of our messaging,” Burger said. He said the set for the show was pieced together largely with items the agency already had, and has the capacity for a total of four people to sit in conversation together.
While I appreciate Kennedy for giving me what will surely be much, much more about which to write, there is danger in this. You can be sure that Kennedy will not be inviting dissenting viewpoints onto his show. Anyone coming across it, with the imprimatur of a sitting Secretary as its host, may fall victim to thinking that what is being presented is official federal policy, the viewpoints of real doctors and scientists, or… you know… sane.
It won’t be any of that. I sincerely hope someone in the White House catches wind of this and puts a stop to it. Sadly, I doubt that is forthcoming.
The Trump administration’s AI policy is two-faced, torn between deregulation and despotism.
In March, the administration released its National AI Legislative Framework, directing Congress to “prevent the United States government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas.” This policy against government interference with AI is consistent with the administration’s purported light-touch approach to regulating the technology—but contrary to its recent actions.
In February 2025, Vice President Vance denounced “excessive regulation of the AI sector,” endorsing a “deregulatory flavor” of AI policy. Several months later, the administration released its AI Action Plan, pledging to “dismantle unnecessary regulatory barriers” and “onerous regulation.”
At first, the Trump administration followed through on this deregulatory promise. Three days into his second term, President Trump revoked an Executive Order from President Biden which established a government-wide effort to regulate and guide the development of the AI industry. Next, as directed by President Trump’s AI Action Plan, the Office of Science and Technology Policy initiated a proceeding to identify federal rules and regulations “that unnecessarily hinder” AI in order to implement “regulatory reform” and “promote” the technology. Last December, the Federal Trade Commission, led by two Trump appointees, set aside a Biden-era enforcement action against Rytr, an AI-powered writing assistant. The FTC explained that, “after reviewing the final order in response to President Trump’s AI Action Plan,” it concluded “the order unduly burdens innovation in the nascent AI industry.”
Despite the laissez-faire gesturing, however, the administration demonstrates a tyrannical impulse to control AI. In the same breath as denouncing excessive regulation, Vice President Vance demanded that “AI must remain free from ideological bias.” President Trump’s AI Action Plan echoed this command, directing AI companies to design their models “to pursue objective truth rather than social engineering agendas.” This rhetoric elides the fact that the First Amendment bars the government from deciding what constitutes “truth.”
In recent months, the administration has sought to exert control over the industry under the guise of combatting so-called “woke AI.” Last July, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government, prohibiting government procurement of AI models unless they are ideologically “neutral,” i.e., “nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI.” In January, Secretary of Defense Hegseth issued a memo instructing the Department of Defense to “utilize models free from usage policy constraints” and banning the DoD from “employ[ing] AI models which incorporate ideological ‘tuning.’”
The memo set the stage for the ongoing dispute between the administration and Anthropic, an American AI company. In July 2025, the DoD contracted with Anthropic to deploy its AI models for national security applications like intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, and cyber operations. In the contract, Anthropic stipulated that the government could not use its models for mass domestic surveillance or to power fully autonomous weapons—arguably violating Hegseth’s rule against usage constraints.
Consequently, in late February, Hegseth threatened to cut ties with Anthropic unless the company allowed the military to use its AI for “all lawful purposes.” When Anthropic refused, President Trump directed federal agencies to “IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology,” deriding the firm as “A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY.” He threatened to “use the Full Power of the Presidency to make [Anthropic] comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”
The DoD then designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, defined as an entity that “may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate” the technology it provides “so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate” the use of the technology or the “information stored or transmitted” thereon. The government has never applied this designation to a U.S. company; it is typically reserved for foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and hostile actors. As a result, Anthropic may not provide products or services to the DoD, and contractors may not use its products while working on DoD projects.
On March 9, Anthropic sued the administration in federal court, challenging the designation and seeking an injunction blocking its implementation. The company pleaded that the Trump administration has “harm[ed] Anthropic irreparably,” jeopardizing public and private contracts and costing it “hundreds of millions of dollars in the near-term,” as well as attacking “Anthropic’s reputation and core First Amendment freedoms.”
On March 26, the District Court for the Northern District of California sided with Anthropic and granted a preliminary injunction barring a variety of federal agencies from terminating their contracts. The court also blocked the DoD and Hegseth from implementing the supply chain risk designation. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin observed that the Trump administration is “punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position,” which “is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.” Last week, the administration appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
Hegseth accused Anthropic of “duplicity,” but it is the Trump administration that has been duplicitous about its approach to AI. Despite championing deregulation, the administration has weaponized the federal government to punish an American AI company for refusing to bend to its will. Abusing the government procurement process to crush domestic AI firms is the opposite of light-touch regulation.
Judge Lin described the Trump administration’s actions against Anthropic as “Orwellian.” The administration has shown its ugly side on AI, and it looks a lot like tyranny.
Andy Jung is associate counsel at TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on technology law and policy.
In case you’ve been asleep, what appears to be an increasingly mentally unstable Donald Trump has further destabilized the middle east with a war nobody asked for or wanted. Most U.S. media coverage of Trump’s disastrous Iran war hasn’t been great, but they’ve still occasionally managed to communicate the pointlessness of the endeavor to the electorate (which speaks more of the unpopularity of the war than their reporting chops).
Some news outlets, like CNN, simply reported directly on what Iran had claimed. This, as you might expect, upset Donald Trump and his top FCC censor Brendan Carr, who are now threatening an “investigation” of CNN for simply repeating what was publicly stated:
The President, White House, and FCC's Brendan Carr are calling for action — and implying a criminal investigation — against CNN for… accurately reporting what Iran's state media shared as a statement from Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
Trump later would issue another statement over at his right wing propaganda website, calling for criminal action against CNN (and CNN only), while making up a whole bunch of nonsense (he may or may not believe is actually true):
Trump’s sensitivity here suggests they’re well aware that a massive, superior military has been getting dog-walked by Iranians because Trump and his advisors were too stupid to understand modern, cheap drone warfare and how shipping in the Straight of Hormuz actually worked. The shipping logjam is driving up gas prices and making life difficult for Republicans ahead of the midterms.
There is, of course, absolutely zero basis for any meaningful criminal action against CNN here of any kind that wouldn’t be laughed out of court on free speech grounds. As we’ve seen with corporate media that doesn’t mean they won’t still capitulate embarrassingly, but so far CNN is standing its ground. As it should, since again, all it did was report on an Iranian statement in a very basic way alongside dozens of other news outlets.
At which point, Trump will move on to threatening any remaining U.S. corporate media outlets that haven’t either embarrassingly capitulated or been purchased by a right wing billionaire. This is, as I keep repeating, an exact copy of Victor Orban’s autocratic media policy in Hungary, which involves having party-loyal oligarchs buy up all corporate media outlets and pummel the public with propaganda while the government strangles what’s left of real, independent reporting just out of frame.
In the first days after Pam Bondi was appointed attorney general last year, the Department of Justice began shutting down pending criminal cases at a record pace.
The cases included an investigation into a Virginia nursing home with a recent record of patient abuse; probes of fraud involving several New Jersey labor unions, including one opened after a top official of a national union was accused of embezzlement; and an investigation into a cryptocurrency company suspected of cheating investors.
In total, the DOJ quietly closed more than 23,000 criminal cases in the first six months of President Donald Trump’s administration, abandoning hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white-collar crime, drugs and other offenses as it shifted resources to pursue immigration cases, according to an analysis by ProPublica.
The bulk of these cases, which were closed without prosecution and known as declinations, had been referred to the DOJ by law enforcement agencies under prior administrations that believed a federal crime may have been committed. The DOJ routinely declines to prosecute cases for any number of reasons, including insufficient evidence or because a case is not a priority for enforcement.
But the number of declinations under Bondi marks a striking departure not only from the Biden administration but also the first Trump term, according to the ProPublica analysis, which examined two decades of DOJ data, including the first six months of Trump’s second term. ProPublica determined the increase is not the result of inheriting a larger caseload or more referrals from law enforcement.
In February 2025 alone, which included the first weeks of Bondi’s tenure, nearly 11,000 cases were declined, the most in a month since at least 2004. The previous high was just over 6,500 cases in September 2019, during Trump’s first administration.
Some of the cases shut down were the result of yearslong investigations by federal agencies such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. For complex cases, the DOJ can take years before deciding whether to bring charges.
The shift comes as the DOJ has undergone an extraordinary overhaul under the Trump administration, with entire units shuttered, directives to abandon pursuit of certain crimes and thousands of lawyers quitting or, in some cases, being forced out of the agency.
In doing so, the DOJ is retreating from its mission to impartially uphold the rule of law, keep the country safe and protect civil rights, according to interviews with a dozen prosecutors and an open letter from nearly 300 DOJ employees who have left the department under Trump. The Trump DOJ, the employees wrote, is “taking a sledgehammer” to long-standing work to “protect communities and the rule of law.”
The change in priorities was outlined in a series of memos sent to attorneys early last year. Trump’s DOJ has said it is “turning a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement” and emphasizing the pursuit of drug cartels, illegal immigrants and institutions that promote “divisive DEI policies.” Trump, in an address last March at the department, said the changes were necessary after a “surrender to violent criminals” during the past administration and would result in a restoration of “fair, equal and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.”
The department prosecuted 32,000 new immigration cases in the first six months of the administration, which was nearly triple the number under the Biden administration and a 15% increase from the first Trump term. It has pursued fewer prosecutions of nearly every other type of crime — from drug offenses to corruption — than new administrations in their first six months dating back to 2009.
The DOJ has also closed hundreds of cases involving alleged crimes that the administration has publicly emphasized as enforcement priorities. Even as the Trump administration unleashed Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency operatives to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, the DOJ declined over 900 cases of federal program or procurement fraud. About three times as many cases of major fraud against the U.S. were declined under Trump compared with the average of similar time periods under prior administrations. And while the Trump administration has promised to “make America safe again,” its DOJ has declined more than 1,000 terrorism cases, also more than prior administrations.
Federal prosecutor Joseph Gerbasi had spent years in the department’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section helping build cases against major suppliers of fentanyl ingredients in India and China. After Bondi came in, he was left bewildered when his team was ordered to abandon its work.
“All of the building blocks of what would become successful prosecutions were pulled out,” said Gerbasi, who retired as the section’s acting deputy chief for policy in March 2025 after 28 years with the department.
The move had an “overwhelming deflating effect on morale,” he said.
Barbara McQuade, who worked as a federal prosecutor in Michigan for two decades until 2017 during Republican and Democratic administrations, said it was not unusual for new administrations to come to office with a few “pet priorities” — such as a focus on violent crime or drug trafficking. But she said those changes usually involved modest adjustments in policy and that most of the decisions on what crimes to focus on were typically made at the local level by the district U.S. attorney in coordination with the FBI or other agencies.
“We would revise those about every five years, not having anything to do with any administration, just because it made sense,” she said.
A DOJ spokesperson, in an emailed response to questions about the spike in declinations, said that in “an effort to clean, remediate, and validate data in U.S. Attorneys’ case management system,” the department reviewed all pending criminal matters opened prior to the 2023 fiscal year, which included updating the status of closed cases. “This Department of Justice remains committed to investigating and prosecuting all types of crime to keep the American people safe, and the number of declinations is a direct result of our efforts to run the agency in a more efficient manner.”
The agency did not respond to questions about the types of cases declined.
The spike of declined cases began in February 2025 when the department ordered prosecutors to review every open case launched prior to October 2022 and determine whether to close it. Such a review would typically take months, according to one attorney tasked with reviewing cases. A memo, which was described to ProPublica reporters, ordered the review to be completed within 10 days.
Former DOJ prosecutors told ProPublica that they typically reviewed caseloads every six months with supervisors and that closing out languishing cases wouldn’t ordinarily be cause for concern. They said the February directive, however, was unusual. None could recall a similar order.
The directive came as higher-ups in the department had begun making frequent demands for data about specific types of cases and charging decisions, such as the outcome of fentanyl cases, according to former prosecutor Michael Gordon. Gordon, who helped prosecute Jan. 6 cases before moving to white-collar crime prosecutions, said the “fire drills” from officials in Washington became so regular that he grew used to the forlorn look on his supervisor’s face when he showed up at Gordon’s door, apologetically delivering yet another frantic request.
“It was either ‘give us stats we can use to make ourselves look good’ or ‘give us the stats to show how bad things are in this area,’” Gordon said. “It was never productive fact-finding.”
Though Gordon didn’t see the memo, he remembered getting the request to review all cases that had been open for more than two years and report back on their status, entering into a master spreadsheet basic information about any that he wanted to keep pursuing.
“The office was pushing us to close everything by a certain date so that when they had to report up to D.C. they had a low number of open cases,” he said. “You really had to go to bat to keep open a case that was more than two years old.”
Gordon said he was fired by the DOJ last June. He has filed a lawsuit alleging his termination was politically motivated. The department did not respond to questions about Gordon’s comments or his lawsuit. The government filed a motion to dismiss the case late last year, arguing that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The court has not yet ruled on that motion, and the case is still pending.
Investigations into individuals or corporations declined for prosecution are generally not reported to courts and usually only disclosed in summary form by the DOJ in annual reports. To conduct its analysis, ProPublica obtained declination data from the DOJ and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a center that obtains data through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Here are some of the areas most impacted by the spike in declinations.
Drugs
As president, Trump has spoken frequently about the “scourge” of drugs coming into the country. At the same time, the Justice Department has declined to prosecute nearly 5,000 cases of federal drug law violations, including trafficking and money laundering. The number of declinations were 45% higher than the average of the prior three new administrations.
Gerbasi, the counternarcotics prosecutor, declined to comment on specific cases that might have been declined in his office. But, he said, once Bondi was appointed, the priority in the office became building cases against Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan group that the Trump administration has labeled a foreign terrorist organization.
“Tren de Aragua was not anywhere close to the scale or impact of the cartels we were focused on,” Gerbasi said. “But we were told to generate those cases.”
He said his office had to scramble to fly people to investigate local gangs in small towns that were reportedly affiliated with Tren de Aragua. “They never would have merited a full-scale federal investigation,” he said.
“It told me that decisions were going to be based on political appearances and not based on the merits of where investigative resources should be placed.”
The DOJ declined to comment on Gerbasi’s remarks.
National Security
Under Bondi, the DOJ declined more than 1,300 cases involving terrorism and national security, nearly twice what was typical at the start of the most recent new administrations. While domestic terrorism was the hardest-hit program, just over 300 cases involving charges of providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations were also dropped.
The DOJ program handling matters relating to national internal security — which considers cases of alleged spy activity and the security of classified information — saw over 200 declinations, which is four times as many as typical in the first six months of a new administration. Some of the cases related to serving as an unregistered foreign agent, a charge Bondi ordered prosecutors to stop pursuing unless they involved “conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors.”
Jimmy Gurulé, a former federal prosecutor and George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. Treasury Department who investigated the financing of terrorism, said the decline in terrorism cases was troubling.
“The Trump DOJ has been used as a political weapon,” he said. “It’s a question of prioritizing resources. Are they going to be used for national security threats or to prosecute his political enemies and critics?” The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment on Gurulé’s remarks.
Labor
The DOJ shut down over 60 union corruption and labor racketeering cases, 2.5 times the number in Trump’s first term. Nearly half of the cases turned down for those offenses were out of the New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office, which in the past has aggressively pursued alleged union corruption. All were noted as declined for insufficient evidence.
Most of those cases had been opened by Grady O’Malley, an assistant U.S. attorney who oversaw several prosecutions of union corruption while working in the New Jersey office over four decades. He retired in 2023 and was disturbed to learn from former colleagues that the office was shutting down the open union probes.
A Trump supporter, O’Malley said that while he doesn’t blame the president, he worries the decision to drop so many cases could embolden unions that he and his colleagues spent years working to hold accountable. “No one is assigned to do labor union cases, and the unions have every reason to believe no one is looking.”
The New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office said it had no comment on the declination of labor cases.
White-Collar Crime
The Trump administration has pledged to root out “rampant” fraud in federal benefit programs like food stamps and welfare. The controversial surging of federal agents to Minnesota in January began as a stated crackdown on noncitizens allegedly ripping off nutrition and child care programs.
The DOJ, however, shut down more than 900 cases of federal program or procurement fraud in the first six months of the administration, including one targeting a mortgage lender accused by several state regulators of defrauding the Federal Housing Administration. The case was dropped due to “prioritization of federal resources and interests.” The U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of Alabama, which declined the case, did not reply to a request for comment. The number of fraud cases closed was about double that in the same time period of the Biden and first Trump administrations.
The agency also closed over 100 health care fraud cases as a result of “prioritization of resources and interests” even though the Trump administration has said it is making this area of enforcement a priority.
Among other cases the DOJ determined weren’t a priority: the probe into the Virginia nursing home accused of abuse, as well as investigations in Tennessee into fraud at a national hospital chain and one of the largest Medicaid managed care companies.
The Western District of Virginia U.S. attorney’s office, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the nursing home case. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Tennessee said the office does not comment on investigations that do not result in public charges.
The DOJ’s Antitrust Division, which focuses on preventing big businesses from creating harmful monopolies, also declined an unusually high number of cases in Trump’s second term. More than 40 cases were dropped within the first six months of Bondi’s tenure. That’s more than double the number declined in the same time period by the prior three new administrations.
Despite the declinations, the department said it charged slightly more people with fraud in 2025 compared with the final year of the Biden administration, and those cases alleged larger financial losses.
Promises Kept
The DOJ under Bondi has also rapidly pursued many of the priorities laid out in Trump’s early executive orders and her own “first day” directives to staff.
Trump in February 2025 issued an executive order pausing new investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits citizens and companies from bribing foreign entities to advance their business interests. The order asked the attorney general to review and “take appropriate action” on any existing probes to “preserve Presidential foreign policy prerogatives.”
In the first six months, Bondi’s DOJ shut down 25 such cases, which is more than the combined number dropped by the prior three new administrations over the same time period. One of the cases declined for prosecution involved a major car manufacturer, which had reported possible anti-bribery violations to federal investigators involving a foreign subsidiary. The DOJ declined the case for prosecution last June, citing the “prioritization of federal resources and interests.”
On her first day, Bondi ordered a review of criminal prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, which prohibits people from illegally blocking access to abortion clinics and places of worship. The department dropped as many cases under the act in its first six months as the past three new administrations combined, over the same time frame. Bondi’s order focused on “non-violent protest activity,” although at least one of the closed cases was being investigated as a violent crime. The DOJ has since charged protesters against Immigration and Customs Enforcement and journalists in Minneapolis under the FACE Act. The defendants in the case have pleaded not guilty.
The agency closed three times the number of cases alleging environmental crimes as the Biden administration did and one-and-a-half times as many as compared with Trump’s first term. The declinations came as the DOJ reassigned and cut prosecutors working on environmental cases. One-fifth of all of the dropped environmental protection cases were shut down for “prioritization of federal resources and interests.”
Last summer, a group of officials from the Department of Energy gathered at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling 890-square-mile complex in the eastern desert of Idaho where the U.S. government built its first rudimentary nuclear power plant in 1951 and continues to test cutting-edge technology.
On the agenda that day: the future of nuclear energy in the Trump era. The meeting was convened by 31-year-old lawyer Seth Cohen. Just five years out of law school, Cohen brought no significant experience in nuclear law or policy; he had just entered government through Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency team.
As Cohen led the group through a technical conversation about licensing nuclear reactor designs, he repeatedly downplayed health and safety concerns. When staff brought up the topic of radiation exposure from nuclear test sites, Cohen broke in.
“They are testing in Utah. … I don’t know, like 70 people live there,” he said.
“But … there’s lots of babies,” one staffer pushed back. Babies, pregnant women and other vulnerable groups are thought to be potentially more susceptible to cancers brought on by low-level radiation exposure, and they are usually afforded greater protections.
“They’ve been downwind before,” another staffer joked.
“This is why we don’t use AI transcription in meetings,” another added.
ProPublica reviewed records of that meeting, providing a rare look at a dramatic shift underway in one of the most sensitive domains of public policy. The Trump administration is upending the way nuclear energy is regulated, driven by a desire to dramatically increase the amount of energy available to power artificial intelligence.
Career experts have been forced out and thousands of pages of regulations are being rewritten at a sprint. A new generation of nuclear energy companies — flush with Silicon Valley cash and boasting strong political connections — wield increasing influence over policy. Figures like Cohen are forcing a “move fast and break things” Silicon Valley ethos on one of the country’s most important regulators.
The Trump administration has been particularly aggressive in its attacks on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the bipartisan independent regulator that approves commercial nuclear power plants and monitors their safety. The agency is not a household name. But it’s considered the international gold standard, often influencing safety rules around the world.
The NRC has critics, especially in Silicon Valley, where the often-cautious commission is portrayed as an impediment to innovation. In an early salvo, President Donald Trump fired NRC Commissioner Christopher Hanson last June after Hanson spoke out about the importance of agency independence. It was the first time an NRC commissioner had been fired.
During that Idaho meeting, Cohen shot down any notion of NRC independence in the new era.
“Assume the NRC is going to do whatever we tell the NRC to do,” he said, records reviewed by ProPublica show. In November, Cohen was made chief counsel for nuclear policy at the Department of Energy, where he oversees a broad nuclear portfolio.
The aggressive moves have sent shock waves through the nuclear energy world. Many longtime promoters of the industry say they worry recklessness from the Trump administration could discredit responsible nuclear energy initiatives.
“The regulator is no longer an independent regulator — we do not know whose interests it is serving,” warned Allison Macfarlane, who served as NRC chair during the Obama administration. “The safety culture is under threat.”
A ProPublica analysis of staffing data from the NRC and the Office of Personnel Management shows a rush to the exits: Over 400 people have left the agency since Trump took office. The losses are particularly pronounced in the teams that handle reactor and nuclear materials safety and among veteran staffers with 10 or more years of experience. Meanwhile, hiring of new staff has proceeded at a snail’s pace, with nearly 60 new arrivals in the first year of the Trump administration compared with nearly 350 in the last year of the Biden administration.
Some nuclear power supporters say the administration is providing a needed level of urgency given the energy demands of AI. They also contend the sweeping changes underway aren’t as dangerous or dire as some experts suggest.
“I think the NRC has been frozen in time,” said Brett Rampal, the senior director of nuclear and power strategy at the investment and strategy consultancy Veriten. “It’s a great time to get unfrozen and aim to work quickly.”
The White House referred most of ProPublica’s questions to the Department of Energy, where spokesperson Olivia Tinari said the agency is committed to helping build more safe, high-quality nuclear energy facilities.
“Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, America’s nuclear industry is entering a new era that will provide reliable, abundant power for generations to come,” she wrote. The DOE is “committed to the highest standards of safety for American workers and communities.”
Cohen did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The NRC declined to comment.
Blindsided by DOGE
The U.S. has not had a serious nuclear incident since the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979, a track record many experts attribute to a rigorous regulatory environment and an intense safety culture.
Major nuclear incidents around the world have only strengthened the resolve of past regulators to stay independent from industry and from political winds. A chief cause of Japan’s Fukushima accident, investigators found, was the cozy relationship between the country’s industry and oversight body, which opened the door for thin safety assessments and inaccurate projections overlooking the possible impact of a major tsunami.
“We knew regulatory capture led directly to Fukushima and to Chernobyl,” said Kathryn Huff, who was assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy during the Biden administration.
The U.S. has barely built any nuclear power plants in recent decades. Only three new reactors have been completed in the last 25 years, and since 1990 the U.S has barely added any net new nuclear electricity to its grid. Though about 20% of U.S. energy is supplied by nuclear power plants, the fleet is aging. Some experts blame the slow build-out on the challenging economics of financing a multibillion-dollar project and the uncertainty of accessing and disposing of nuclear fuels.
But an increasingly vocal group of industry voices and deregulation advocates have blamed the slow build-out on overly cautious and inefficient regulators. Among the most powerful exponents of this view are billionaires Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen; both venture capitalists have their own investments in the nuclear energy sector and are influential Trump supporters.
Andreessen camped out at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club in Florida, after Trump won the 2024 election, helping pick staff for the new administration. In late 2024, Thiel personally vetted at least one candidate for the Office of Nuclear Energy, according to people familiar with the conversations. Neither responded to requests for comment.
Four months into his second term, Trump signed a series of executive orders designed to supercharge nuclear power build-out. “It’s a hot industry, it’s a brilliant industry,” said Trump, flanked by nuclear energy CEOs in the Oval Office. He added: “And it’s become very safe.”
Under those orders, the NRC was directed to reduce its workforce, speed up the timeline for approving nuclear reactors and rewrite many of its safety rules. The DOE — which has a vast nuclear portfolio, including waste cleanup sites and government research labs — was tasked with creating a pathway for so-called advanced nuclear companies to test their designs.
The goal, Trump said, was to quadruple nuclear energy output and provide new power to the data centers behind the AI boom.
As DOGE gutted agencies, departures mounted in the nuclear sector. Career experts in nuclear regulations and safety departed or were forced out. When Trump fired Hanson, a Democratic NRC commissioner, the president’s team explained the move by saying, “All organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction.”
In an unsigned email to ProPublica, the White House press office wrote: “All commissioners are presidential appointees and can be fired just like any other appointee.”
In August, the NRC’s top attorney resigned and was replaced by oil and gas lawyer David Taggart, who had been working on DOGE cuts at the DOE. In all, the nuclear office at the DOE had lost about a third of its staff, according to a January 2026 count by the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit focused on science and technology policy.
That summer, Cohen and a team of DOGE operatives touched down at the NRC offices, a series of nondescript towers across from a Dunkin’ in suburban Maryland. He was joined by Adam Blake, an investor who had recently founded an AI medical startup and has a background in real estate and solar energy, and Ankur Bansal, president of a company that created software for real estate agents. Neither would comment for this story.
Many career officials who spoke with ProPublica were blindsided: The new Trump officials at the NRC seemed to have no experience with the intricacies of nuclear energy policy or law, they said. One NRC lawyer who briefed some of the new arrivals decided to resign. “They were talking about quickly approving all these new reactors, and they didn’t seem to care that much about the rules — they wanted to carry out the wishes of the White House,” the official said.
At one point, Cohen began passing out hats from nuclear energy startup Valar Atomics, one of the companies vying to build a new reactor, according to sources familiar with the matter and records seen by ProPublica. NRC staffers balked; they were supposed to monitor companies like Valar for safety violations, not wear its swag.
NRC ethics officials warned Cohen that the hat handout was a likely violation of conflict rules. It betrayed a misunderstanding of the safety regulator’s role, said a former official familiar with the exchange. “Imagine you live near a nuclear power plant, and you find out a supposedly independent safety regulator — the watchdog — is going around wearing the power plant’s branded hats,” the official said. “Would that make you feel safe?” The NRC and Cohen did not respond to requests for comment about the hat incident.
Valar counts Trump’s Silicon Valley allies as angel investors. They include Palmer Luckey, a technology executive and founder of the defense contractor Anduril, and Shyam Sankar, chief technology officer of Palantir, the software company helping power Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation raids.
It was among three nuclear reactor companies that sued the NRC last year in an attempt to strip it of its authority to regulate its reactors and replace it with a state-level regulator. Before the Trump administration came into office, lawyers watching the case were confident the courts would quickly dismiss the suit, as the NRC’s authority to regulate reactors is widely acknowledged. But new Trump appointees pushed for a compromise settlement — which is still being negotiated. The career NRC lawyer working on the case quietly left the agency.
Valar and its executives did not reply to requests for comment.
“Going So Fast”
The deregulatory push is the culmination of mounting pressure — both political and economic — to make it easier to build nuclear power in the U.S. Over the years, a bipartisan coalition supporting nuclear expansion brought together environmentalists who favor zero-carbon power and defense hawks focused on abundant domestic energy production.
Anti-nuclear activists still argue that renewable energy like wind and solar are safer and more economical. But streamlining the NRC has been a bipartisan priority as well. The latest major reform came in 2024, when President Joe Biden signed into law the ADVANCE Act, which went as far as changing the mission statement of the NRC to ensure it “does not unnecessarily limit” nuclear energy development.
Some nuclear power supporters say the Trump administration is merely accelerating these changes. They cite instances in which the current regulations appear out of sync with the times. The NRC’s byzantine rules are designed for so-called large light-water reactors — massive facilities that can power entire cities — and not the increasingly in vogue smaller advanced reactor designs popular among Silicon Valley-backed firms.
Rules that require fences of certain heights might make little sense for new reactors buried in the earth; and rules that require a certain number of operators per reactor could be a bad fit for a cluster of smaller reactors with modern controls. Advances in sensors, modeling and safety technologies, they say, should be taken into account across the board.
The NRC has said it expects over two dozen new license requests from small modular and advanced reactor companies in coming years. Many of those requests are likely to come from new, Silicon Valley-based nuclear firms.
“There was a missing link in the innovation cycle, and it was very difficult to build something and test it in the U.S. because of mostly licensing and site availability constraints in the past,” said Adam Stein of the pro-nuclear nonprofit Breakthrough Institute.
The regulatory changes are in flux: This spring, the NRC is starting to release thousands of pages of new rules governing everything from the safety and emergency preparedness plans reactor companies are required to submit to the procedures for objecting to a reactor license.
“It’s hard to know if they are getting rid of unnecessary processes or if it’s actually reducing public safety,” said one official working on reactor licensing, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from the Trump administration. “And that’s just the problem with going so fast — everything just kind of gets lost in a mush.”
Lawyers from the Executive Office of the President have been sent to the NRC to keep an eye on the new rules, a move that further raised alarms about the agency’s independence.
Nicholas Gallagher — a relatively recent New York University law school graduate and conservative writer whom ProPublica previously identified as a DOGE operative at the General Services Administration — has been involved in conversations about overhauling environmental rules.
He’s working alongside Sydney Volanski, a 30-year-old recent law school graduate who rose to national attention while she was in high school for her campaign against the Girl Scouts of America, which she accused of promoting “Marxists, socialists and advocates of same-sex lifestyle.”
NRC lawyers working on the rules were told last October that Gallagher and Volanski would be joining them, and they both appear on the regular NRC rulemaking calendar invite.
The White House maintains, however, that “zero lawyers from the Executive Office of the President have been dispatched to work on rulemaking.” Neither Gallagher nor Volanski replied to requests for comment.
The administration is routing the new rules through an office overseen by Trump’s cost-cutting guru Russell Vought, a move that was previously unheard of for an independent regulator like the NRC. The White House spokesperson noted that, under a recent executive order, this process is now required for all agencies.
Political operatives have been “inserted into the senior leadership team to the point where they could significantly influence decision-making,” said Scott Morris, who worked at the NRC for more than 32 years, most recently as the No. 2 career operations official. “I just think that would be a dangerous proposition.”
Morris voted for Trump twice and broadly supports the goals of deregulating and expanding nuclear energy, but he has begun speaking out against the administration’s interference at the NRC. He retired in May 2025 as part of a wave of retirements and firings.
At a recent hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board — an independent body that helps adjudicate nuclear licensing — NRC lawyers withdrew from the proceedings, citing “limited resources.” The judge remarked that it was the first time in over 20 years the NRC had done so.
Meanwhile, some staff members, other career officials say, are afraid to voice dissenting views for fear of being fired. “It feels like being a lobster in a slowly boiling pot,” one NRC official who has been working on the rule changes told ProPublica, describing the erosion of independence.
The official was one of three who compared their recent experience at NRC to being in a pot of slowly boiling water. “If somebody is raising something that they think that the industry or the White House would have a problem with, they think twice,” the official said.
Inside the NRC, the steering committee overseeing the changes includes Cohen, Taggart and Mike King, a career NRC official who is the newly installed executive director for operations. The former director, Mirela Gavrilas, a 21-year veteran of the agency, retired after getting boxed out of decision-making, according to a person familiar with her departure. Gavrilas did not respond to a request for comment.
Any final changes will be approved by the NRC’s five commissioners, three of whom are Republicans. In September, the two Democratic commissioners told a Senate committee they might be fired at any time if they get crosswise with Trump — including over revisions to safety rules.
Draft rules being circulated inside the NRC propose drastic rollbacks of security and safety inspections at nuclear facilities. Those include a proposed 56% cut in emergency preparedness inspection time, CNN reported in March.
Even some pro-nuclear groups are troubled by the emerging order. Some have tried to backchannel to their contacts in the Trump administration to explain the importance of an independent regulator to help maintain public support for nuclear power. Without it, they risk losing credibility.
“You have to make sure you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater,” said Judi Greenwald, president and CEO of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit that promotes nuclear energy and supports many of the regulatory changes being proposed by the Trump administration.
Greenwald’s group favors faster timelines for approving nuclear reactors, but she worries that the agency’s fundamental independence has been undermined. “We would prefer that they yield back more of NRC independence,” she said.
“Nuke Bros” in Silicon Valley
One Trump administration priority has been making it easier for so-called advanced reactor companies to navigate the regulatory process. These firms, mostly backed by Silicon Valley tech and venture money, are often working on designs for much smaller reactors that they hope to mass produce in factories.
“There are two nuclear industries,” said Macfarlane, the former NRC chair. “There are the actual people who use nuclear reactors to produce power and put it on the grid … and then there are the ‘nuke bros’” in Silicon Valley.
Trump’s Silicon Valley allies have loomed large over his nuclear policy. One prospective political appointee for a top DOE nuclear job got a Christmas Eve call from Thiel, the rare Silicon Valley leader to back Trump in 2016. Thiel, whose Founders Fund invested in a nuclear fuel startup and an advanced reactor company, quizzed the would-be official about deregulation and how to rapidly build more nuclear energy capacity, said sources familiar with the conversation.
Nuclear energy startups jockeyed to spend time at Mar-a-Lago in the months before the start of Trump’s second term. Balerion Space Ventures, a venture capital firm that has invested in multiple companies, convened an investor summit there in January 2025, according to an invitation viewed by ProPublica. Balerion did not reply to a request for comment.
A few months later, when Trump was drawing up the executive orders, leaders at many of those nuclear companies were given advanced access to drafts of the text — and the opportunity to provide suggested edits, documents viewed by ProPublica show.
Those orders created a new program to test out experimental reactor designs, addressing a common complaint that companies are not given opportunities to experiment. There are currently about a dozen advanced reactor companies planning to participate. Each has a concierge team within the DOE to help navigate bureaucracy. As NPR reported in January, the DOE quietly overhauled a series of safety rules that would apply to these new reactors and shared the new regulations with these companies before making them public.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright — who served on the board of one of those companies, Oklo — has said fast nuclear build-out is a priority: “We are moving as quickly as we can to permit, build and enable the rapid construction of as much nuke capacity as possible,” he told CNBC last fall. Oklo noted that Wright stepped down from the board when he was confirmed.
The Trump administration hopes some of the companies would have their reactors “go critical” — a key first step on the way to building a functioning power plant — by July 2026. Then the NRC, which signs off on the safety designs of commercial nuclear power plants, could be expected to quickly OK these new reactors to get to market.
According to people familiar with the conversations, at least one nuclear energy startup CEO personally recruited potential members of the DOGE nuclear team, though it’s not clear if Cohen was brought aboard this way. Cohen has told colleagues and industry contacts that he reports to Emily Underwood, one of Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s top aides for economic policy. He is perceived inside government as a key avatar of the White House’s nuclear agenda.
In its email to ProPublica, the White House said, “Seth Cohen is a Department of Energy employee and does not report to Emily Underwood or Stephen Miller in any capacity.”
The DOE spokesperson added, “Seth’s role at the Department of Energy is to support the Trump administration’s mission to unleash American Energy Dominance.”
Cohen has been pushing to raise the legal limit of radiation that nuclear energy companies are allowed to emit from their facilities. One nuclear industry insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said many firms are fixating on changing these radiation rules: Their business model requires moving nuclear reactors around the country, often near workers or the general public.
Building thick, expensive shielding walls can be prohibitively expensive, they said.
Valar CEO Isaiah Taylor has called limits on exposure to radiation a top barrier to industry growth. A recent DOE memo seen by ProPublica cites cost savings on shielding for Valar’s reactor to justify changing those limits. “Shielding-related cost reductions,” the memo said, “could range from $1-2 million per reactor.” The debate over the precise rule change is ongoing.
The DOE has been considering a fivefold increase to the limit for public exposure to radiation, which will allow some nuclear reactor companies to cut costs on these expensive safety shields, internal DOE documents seen by ProPublica show.
A presentation prepared by DOE staffers in their Idaho offices that has circulated inside the department makes the “business case” for changing the radiation dose rules: It could cut the cost of some new reactors by as much as 5%. These more relaxed standards are likely to be adopted by the NRC and apply to reactors nationwide, documents show.
In February, Wright accompanied Valar’s executive team on a first-of-its-kind flight, as a U.S. military plane was conscripted to fly the company’s reactor from Los Angeles to Utah. Valar does not yet have a working nuclear reactor, and a number of industry sources told ProPublica they viewed the airlift as a PR exercise. Internal government memos justified the airlift by designating it as “critical” to the U.S. “national security interests.”
Cohen posted smiling pictures of himself from the cargo bay of the military plane.
Cohen told an audience at the American Nuclear Society that the rapid build-out was essential to powering Silicon Valley’s AI data centers. He framed the policy in existential terms: “I can’t emphasize this strongly enough that losing the AI war is an outcome akin to the Nazis developing the bomb before the United States.”
As it deliberated rule changes, the DOE has cut out its internal team of health experts who work on radiation safety at the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, said sources familiar with the decision. The advice of outside experts on radiation protection has been largely cast aside.
The DOE spokesperson said its radiation standards “are aligned with Gold Standard Science … with a focus on protecting people and the environment while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.”
The department has already decided to abandon the long-standing radiation protection principle known as “ALARA” — the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” standard — which directs anyone dealing with radioactive materials to minimize exposure.
It often pushes exposure well below legal thresholds. Many experts agreed that the ALARA principle was sometimes applied too strictly, but the move to entirely throw it out was opposed by many prominent radiation health experts.
Whether the agencies will actually change the legal thresholds for radiation exposure is an open question, said sources familiar with the deliberations.
Internal DOE documents arguing for changing dose rules cite a report produced at the Idaho National Laboratory, which was compiled with the help of the AI assistant Claude. “It’s really strange,” said Kathryn Higley, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, a congressionally chartered group studying radiation safety. “They fundamentally mistake the science.”
John Wagner, the head of the Idaho National Laboratory and the report’s lead author, acknowledged to ProPublica that the science over changing radiation exposure rules is hotly contested. “We recognize that respected experts interpret aspects of this literature differently,” he wrote. His analysis was not meant to be the final word, he said, but was “intended to inform debate.”
The impact of radiation levels at very low doses is hard to measure, so the U.S. has historically struck a cautious note. Raising dose limits could put the U.S. out of step with international standards.
For his part, Cohen has told the nuclear industry that he sees his job as making sure the government “is no longer a barrier” to them.
In June, he shot down the notion of companies putting money into a fund for workplace accidents. “Put yourself in the shoes of one of these startups,” he said. “They’re raising hundreds of millions of dollars to do this. And then they would have to go to their VCs and their board and say, listen, guys, we actually need a few hundred million dollars more to put into a trust fund?”
He also suggested that regulators should not fret about preparing for so-called 100-year events — disasters that have roughly a 1% chance of taking place but can be catastrophic for nuclear facilities.
“When SpaceX started building rockets, they sort of expected the first ones to blow up,” he said.
Last election season the Trump campaign lied to everyone repeatedly about how his second administration would “rein in big tech,” and be a natural extension of the Lina Khan antitrust movement. As we noted at the time, that was always an obvious fake populist lie, but it was propped up anyway by a lazy U.S. press and a long line of useful idiots (including some purported “antitrust experts“.)
The Wall Street Journal last week published a new interesting story about that last bit. Specifically, it’s about how Mike Davis, a radical Trump loyalist and corporate lobbyist, found it relatively trivial to oust the small handful of actual antitrust reformers embedded within the MAGA coalition who occasionally cared about the public interest (Gail Slater and Mark Hamer):
“A Journal investigation found that Davis pushed antitrust officials at the Justice Department to approve his deals—and he went over their heads when they wouldn’t comply, according to interviews with more than three dozen DOJ employees, lobbyists, lawyers and others familiar with the antitrust division.”
Davis, who opportunistically pivoted to pseudo-big-tech criticism after being refused a job in the industry, is a transactional bully who was very excited about Trump’s plan to put minority children in cages last election season. He’s also, according to the Journal, been pivotal in elbowing out any remaining real antitrust enforcers to help Trump operate an even more “pay to play” government:
“Davis, despite having little experience practicing antitrust law, is one of the most visible practitioners of a change playing out across the division. Current and former antitrust officials said some mergers now get approval or draw mild settlements based on political ties rather than public interest. The new dynamic casts a shadow over the Justice Department’s integrity, they said, and has alarmed even some Trump loyalists in the department.”
And this is the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal; not exactly the bastion of progressive left wing thought. In Davis’ head, he’s not easily exploiting the comical levels of corruption in the Trump White House, he’s just exceptional, according to comments he made to the Journal:
“I’m the best fixer in Washington, period. Full stop,” said the 48-year-old Iowan. “I know the people. I know the process. I know their pressure points. I know how to win.”
That Trump 2.0 was going to be a corrupt shitshow–and that the movement’s fake dedication to “reining in big tech” and “antitrust reform would be completely hollow–was one of the easier election season predictions I’d ever had to make. It should have been particularly and abundantly obvious to the ostensible fans of antitrust still peppered within the administration.
Even these “antitrust enforcers” within MAGA weren’t what you’d call remotely consistent when it comes to reining in corporate power. And while the Journal sort of romanticizes the first Trump term for “having guardrails,” it too was full of all manner of mindless rubber stamping of harmful deals that eroded competition and drove up costs (like the Sprint T-Mobile merger).
Yet, again, there were no shortage of press outlets (and supposed progressive antitrust experts like Matt Stoller) that spent much of last election season insisting that while Trump 2.0 might be problematic, it would feature ample populist checks on corporate power. You were to believe a sizeable chunk of the GOP had suddenly and uncharacteristically seen the light on antitrust reform.
Building meaningful and productive alliances with authoritarians is like trying to cultivate an intimate relationship with a running chainsaw. And the act of treating them as serious actors on antitrust reform (something Stoller and the press broadly did, repeatedly, with everyone from JD Vance to Josh Hawley) gave them press and policy credibility they never had to earn.
MAGA leadership is largely comprised of transactional bullies whose primary interest is in wealth accumulation and power. Everything else, whether it’s MAHA, or the administration’s purported antiwar stance, or its love of “antitrust reform” was an obvious populist lie, designed to convince a broadly befuddled electorate that dim, violent, and corrupt autocracy would be good for them.
Last week, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri got into a heated exchange during a Senate hearing with Stanford’s Daphne Keller. Schmitt, who, as Missouri’s Attorney General, originally filed the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, was berating Keller over Stanford’s supposed role in helping the Biden administration censor social media during the 2020 election (see if you can spot the time-space continuum problem with that sentence). When Keller pushed back on his characterization of events, Schmitt got increasingly agitated and told her she could “read all about it in Missouri v. Biden.” Keller’s response was instant and devastating: “The one you lost?“
He did not take it well, immediately throwing an embarrassing Senatorial temper tantrum.
And so maybe it’s not surprising that just a week later, Schmitt was doing a victory lap over a “settlement” that his friends in the Trump administration very conveniently worked out with the remaining plaintiffs in the case. The framing, of course, was triumphant. From his post on social media:
Shorter version:
We just won Missouri v. Biden.
As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent “misinformation” while they pushed their narrative on the American people.
Missouri struck first—and Missouri won big.
And the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented many of the plaintiffs, was even more grandiose in its description of the settlement:
The federal government’s social media censorship was the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history, it was profoundly important to resist it.
Even the Washington Post editorial board got taken in, writing about the settlement as a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles.” Reclaim the Net went even further, claiming the decree represented a “formal, court-enforceable admission: the federal government pressured social media platforms to silence protected speech.”
There’s just one fairly big problem. None of this is true. The case was a dud. While it is true that the district court hyped it up as (what the NCLA repeated) “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” literally no one else found the same. The Fifth Circuit saw that most of the claims were flimsy and cut back nearly the entire injunction, and the Supreme Court threw it out completely (“the one that you lost”) not only pointing out five separate times that there was “no evidence” to support the claims of censorship, but also calling out the district court’s findings, noting that they “appear to be clearly erroneous.”
It’s quite a misleading victory lap to quote the judge who both higher courts called out for misreading the evidence to say things that the evidence clearly did not say (it was actually worse: the judge fabricated quotes to make it sound like there was evidence when there was not).
As for this “settlement,” anyone who actually reads it would realize that it doesn’t support any of the claims making the rounds.
Now the reason Schmitt claims he didn’t “lose” the case is because, technically, the Supreme Court rejected the case on “standing” grounds — meaning the plaintiffs hadn’t shown they had a legal right to bring the case. But the reason they didn’t have standing was devastating to the plaintiffs’ entire theory. The opinion methodically dismantled the conspiracy theory at the heart of the case:
We reject this overly broad assertion. As already discussed, the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct. In fact, the platforms, acting independently, had strengthened their pre-existing content-moderation policies before the Government defendants got involved. For instance, Facebook announced an expansion of its COVID–19 misinformation policies in early February 2021, before White House officials began communicating with the platform. And the platforms continued to exercise their independent judgment even after communications with the defendants began. For example, on several occasions, various platforms explained that White House officials had flagged content that did not violate company policy.
The Court further called out how the lower courts had built their case on lies and misrepresentations:
The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.”… But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance, the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship requests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests. The record it cites says nothing about “censorship requests.” Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. This has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation.
In other words, the Supreme Court looked at the actual record, found a pile of conspiratorial nonsense, and told the lower courts they got played. This was a loss. A clear, unambiguous loss.
But of course, with Trump back in office and the same crew of ideologues now running the government, it was time to manufacture a win. And so we get this “consent decree.”
On paper, it sounds dramatic. The NCLA breathlessly announced that the settlement “prohibits the U.S. Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from threatening social media companies into removing or suppressing constitutionally protected speech.” Schmitt claimed the decree means “no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions.”
But if you actually read the consent decree (and I encourage you to do so, because clearly many of the people celebrating it haven’t), you find something remarkable: the decree prohibits conduct that the Supreme Court found no evidence was happening, while explicitly carving out everything that actually was happening.
First (and most importantly), the decree only applies to three remaining individual plaintiffs (Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Jill Hines, and Jim Hoft) and two states, and only on five specific platforms. It doesn’t protect anyone else. If you’re a random American whose content gets moderated on social media, this decree does absolutely nothing for you. That certainly doesn’t match what Schmitt claimed.
Second, and more importantly, paragraph 24 of the decree is where the whole thing collapses:
This prohibition does not extend to providing Social-Media Companies with information that the companies are free to use as they wish. Nor does it extend to statements by government officials that posts on Social Media Companies’ platforms are inaccurate, wrong, or contrary to the Administration’s views, unless those statements are otherwise coupled with a threat of punishment within the meaning of the above provision.
That paragraph basically describes exactly what the Biden administration was actually doing — and declares it fine. The government can still share information with social media companies. It can still tell companies that content on their platforms is wrong or inaccurate. It can still express displeasure. It just can’t couple those statements with threats of punishment.
Which is… exactly what the First Amendment already requires. And exactly what the Supreme Court found was not happening in the first place. The consent decree literally codifies the Biden administration’s actual conduct as permissible while grandly prohibiting a phantom version of events that the Supreme Court found no evidence of.
Even better, paragraph 17 of the decree says the quiet part out loud:
The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of settling and compromising any remaining claims in this action without further litigation, and, except as stated explicitly in the text of the Agreement, it shall not be construed as evidence or as an admission regarding any issues of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action or in any other action.
So the decree is explicitly not an admission of anything. It cannot be construed as evidence of any wrongdoing. The government didn’t admit to censorship. Reclaim the Net’s headline — “US Government Admits Pressuring Social Media Platforms to Censor Protected Speech” — is directly contradicted by the text of the document they’re supposedly celebrating. Did they not read it?
Yes, the preamble quotes Trump’s executive order making grand accusations about Biden-era censorship. But that’s a political document, not a finding of fact. The Trump administration saying the Biden administration did bad things is hardly the same as the Biden administration admitting it did bad things, or a court finding that it did bad things. In fact, the only court to substantively examine the evidence — the Supreme Court — found no evidence to support these claims.
So what we have here is a neat little trick: the Trump administration negotiates a settlement with friendly plaintiffs (some of whom had to drop out of the case because they joined the Trump administration), quotes Trump’s own executive order as if it were established fact, and everyone involved pretends this vindicates the original claims — despite the Supreme Court (and a clean reading of the evidence) having rejected them.
Speaking of those former plaintiffs, let’s talk about the delicious absurdity of how this case ate itself. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original individual plaintiffs who claimed he was censored by the Biden administration, had to drop out of the case because he was confirmed as Director of the National Institutes of Health — the agency he claimed (without evidence) had “censored him” even though his lawyers somehow forgot to add NIH as a defendant. Dr. Martin Kulldorff similarly withdrew because of his new role within the Department of Health and Human Services. The supposed victims of government censorship are now running the very agencies they accused of censoring them. And, again, I have to reinforce, that the Supreme Court called out the lack of actual “censorship” for either of these guys.
Both Bhattacharya and Kulldorff were mad that Facebook restricted access to the Great Barrington Declaration, a document they co-authored. But they fail to mention that the person running the Great Barrington Declaration website has publicly revealed that the reason Facebook blocked it was anti-vaxxers mass reporting the site — because they misread the declaration as supporting “forced vaccinations.” (There are more details at the link above).
So naturally, despite all this, the fact that they became top officials in the Trump administration should raise questions about how suddenly the administration worked out a friendly settlement with their friends who were still plaintiffs. What a coincidence.
But the real tell is what’s happening right now, while MAGA is celebrating: the Trump admin is doing far worse than anything Biden was even accused of. Yes, while the Trump administration and its gullible friends are busy patting themselves on the back for supposedly defending free speech from the horrors of the Biden administration sharing information with social media companies, it is engaged in conduct that is far, far worse than anything alleged in Missouri v. Biden.
As you’ll certainly recall, the Trump administration’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr went on a podcast and explicitly threatened Disney with regulatory retaliation over Jimmy Kimmel’s monologues, telling them “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Hours later, the show was pulled. That’s textbook coercion — exactly the kind that the Supreme Court in both Murthy and Vullo said would violate the First Amendment if proven. Unlike the conduct in the case that just settled, where the Supreme Court found no such proof.
And then we have the even clearer violation: Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice demanded that Apple and Google remove the ICEBlock app from their stores… and bragged about it! That’s the federal government literally ordering private companies to suppress an application. Not sending mean emails. Not sharing information platforms are free to use as they wish. An explicit demand for removal.
“We reached out to Apple today demanding they removethe ICEBlock app from their App Store—and Apple did so,” Bondi added according to the Fox report.
Where’s Schmitt’s outrage? Where’s the NCLA lawsuit? Where’s Philip Hamburger’s condemnation of “the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history”?
Nowhere. Because this was never really about free speech. This was about building a narrative that the Biden administration censored conservatives, manufacturing a legal document that appears to vindicate that claim (despite explicitly saying it doesn’t), and then using it as political cover while engaging in an even more extreme version of the conduct you claimed to oppose.
This perfectly matches the pattern Renee DiResta documented in her Lawfare review of Schmitt’s book — which he subtitled “how to beat the left in court” — where she noted his habit of presenting cases he lost as if he won them. The book apparently describes multiple lawsuits where Schmitt failed to achieve his stated legal objectives but then spun the results as massive victories for the narrative benefit. Missouri v. Biden is the crown jewel of this approach: lose at the Supreme Court, negotiate a meaningless consent decree with a friendly administration, declare total victory.
Even the Washington Post editorial board, which gave the decree far more credit than it deserved, couldn’t quite look away from the obvious:
The unfortunate catch is that the settlement only applies to the specific plaintiffs in this particular case. In other words, only the people who initially sued the Biden administration, and public officials from Louisiana and Missouri, will enjoy the court-ordered protections from government censorship. It’s unlikely the current administration would target right-leaning individuals or states, but the consent decree will apply for 10 years.
The settlement also applies only to government pressure on five companies: Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Linkedln and YouTube. That means, for example, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s efforts to bully broadcasters to toe the administration’s political line will be unaffected.
So even the Post recognizes that the decree does nothing about actual, current, obvious government coercion of media companies. But somehow this is still a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles”? How so? A consent decree that protects three specific people from conduct that wasn’t happening, while the government signing the decree is actively coercing media companies in ways that obviously violate the First Amendment?
The consent decree is a press release disguised as a legal document. It prohibits First Amendment violations the Supreme Court found no evidence of, permits everything the evidence shows the Biden administration was actually doing, and was signed by an administration currently engaged in the exact conduct the decree pretends to prohibit.
FCC boss Brendan Carr spends an awful lot of time pretending to be a tough guy, threatening any broadcasters that aren’t suitably deferential to our mad, idiot king. Carr’s had giant temper tantrums over comedians who make jokes, daytime and late night talk shows that refuse to kiss Republican ass, and any remaining journalists who critically cover the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.
Now Trump and Carr have something else to whine about pointlessly. Despite everything going on (including a disastrous, economy-rattling war), Trump somehow found time to write an executive order threatening any broadcasters that might pre-empt the Army Navy college football game as the college football playoffs expand:
“For over a century, the Army-Navy Game, known as “America’s Game,” has stood as a symbol of excellence and the American spirit. Now, the recent and potentially ongoing expansion of the College Football Playoffs (CFP) and other postseason college football games threatens to encroach upon the second Saturday in December — a date traditionally reserved exclusively for “America’s Game.” Such scheduling conflicts weaken the national focus on our Military Service Academies and detract from a morale-building event of vital interest to the Department of War.”
Here’s where I’ll point out that CBS Sports, now owned by right wing Trump ally David Ellison, holds the exclusive broadcast rights to this particular game. The broadcast rights of the other earlier round games encroaching on CBS’ turf (which have been doing better in the ratings) are owned by ESPN/Disney/ABC. Many of these are, I’ll point out, on cable, not broadcast.
It’s entirely possible that Larry or his nepobaby son called the president, whined about the competition, and the president immediately got to “work” addressing the problem under the pretense of patriotism. Or who knows what caused the President to suddenly care about the TV schedule of college football games. With an executive order that isn’t legal or enforceable and very likely means nothing because Trump can’t wave his hand and magically influence private scheduling organizations.
Curiously, if you read the New York Times story about this decision, the fact that it’s a top Trump donor, Ellison, who would benefit from this EO, simply isn’t mentioned. They didn’t think that was relevant. Same at the Associated Press. Same (of course) over at CBS, which talks about patriotism and “tradition,” but not the fact this EO was designed primarily to protect the interests of a Trump billionaire ally.
And none of those outlets also thought it was worth mentioning this EO likely means nothing and Trump has no serious power here. It’s another lovely example of how corporate media is building “journalism” in name only. Weird, hollow, pseudo-journalistic simulacrum designed to look like journalism that doesn’t actually inform anybody about what’s actually happening.
Anyway, Trump has tasked his personal earlobe nibbler, Carr, to once again threaten anybody who makes Republicans (and their oligarch friends) sad:
“The Chairman of the FCC shall consider reviewing the public interest obligations of broadcast licensees to determine whether those obligations would require that the Army-Navy Game remain a national service event.”
Trump and Carr are comically abusing the (fleeting and barely enforced) public interest standards affixed to broadcast television licenses in an industry that’s dramatically losing viewership (just 20% of all TV viewing was over broadcast last year, an all time low). Even if Trump did have the authority to try and stop broadcast TV competition in its tracks, this sad little pseudo-patriotic gambit still wouldn’t mean much.
I think we can all agree that nobody seems to be taking the business of governing ourselves terribly seriously.
I say we can all agree on this because I think we all know that Donald Trump is a deranged, narcissistic criminal. We know this. Even those of you who nominally support him — because you have convinced yourself that he is the only thing standing between you and everything you hold dear, however you define that.
For some of you, I think the answer is quite pathetic, if we are being honest. The relationships you have built with your donors, with your executive networks, with all the perquisites that come with being an insider — you simply want to hold on to that, because you feel like that is where the action is. That is power. That is being somebody. That is mattering.
The truth is, you do matter. You hold a seat in the Congress of the United States. The most beautiful idea in the history of human civilization: that a people could govern themselves. Without a king or potentate. We used to be quite proud of that in this country. That we brought the ancient yearning to breathe free from the bondage of primitive hierarchies into the world by founding a republic of laws. Not of men. Not of women. Of laws.
⁂
You are, in some ways, the most powerful people who have ever lived in the history of human civilization. Because you, as members of the Article I Branch, have all the power you need to bring an end to this — if you can remember that you are human beings and Americans, and awaken to some semblance of your humanity. If you can make good on your Oath of Office: to defend the Constitution of the United States, that was fought and died for, that is burning before the eyes of history. You are its sworn stewards.
And yet you stand still.
⁂
An unconstitutional war has been started without your authorization. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The largest liquid natural gas facility in the Gulf is in flames. The supply shock now working its way through global energy, transportation, and food chains will make the inflation of 2021 to 2023 look like a mild inconvenience. That crisis destabilized governments across the democratic world and handed demagogues the opening they needed. What is coming is not in the same category.
A foreign head of state — a corrupt, post-truth demagogue, operating under criminal indictment in his own country, who attempted to seize control of his nation’s Supreme Court to keep himself out of jail, who channeled money to Hamas to pursue a divide-and-rule strategy against his own political opponents — has manipulated the machinery of the United States federal government, under color of Article II, to commit this nation to armed conflict without the consent of the governed. Without your vote. Without your authorization. In direct violation of the constitutional order you swore to defend.
Trump should already have been impeached and removed for giving the directive. That you have not done so is a fact history will record with considerable unkindness.
⁂
So as you look back on history, and think toward the future — do you simply have no shame? Do you feel nothing for the suffering you are permitting to persist? For the crimes that continue to accumulate? For the breach of sacred faith with those who gave the full measure of their devotion to this country, so that it might be free?
You can stop this. You have the power. The Constitution gave it to you precisely for moments like this one — precisely because the founders understood that executives with unchecked power tend, in time, toward exactly what we are watching now. They designed a remedy. They placed it in your hands.
The most powerful legislative body in the history of human civilization is watching the republic burn, and doing nothing, because its members have decided that their donor relationships and their insider access and their sense of being somebody matter more than the Oath they took, the Constitution they swore to defend, and the people whose lives are about to get very much worse because of a war they did not authorize and cannot stop.
You can quite literally help save the world. Because it needs saving right now.
I suggest you save it.
— Mike Brock
God bless America. May the Star-Spangled Banner yet wave over these lands.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
