The Dictatorship

The DOJ’s ethics proposal would have a corrupt fox guarding the henhouse

Published

3 months ago

March 18, 2026

Mar. 17, 2026, 5:59 PM EDT

State bar associations play an important accountability role across the country. Trump administration lawyers know that their legal licenses are subject to censure, because practicing law in the United States remains a privilege, not a right. But if Attorney General Pam Bondi has her way, even this guardrail could disappear.

Last week, Bondi proposed a new rule that would allow the Department of Justice to take over investigations of alleged attorney misconduct of its own lawyers. State bar authorities would have to pause their investigations while the Justice Department conducts its own probe. The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

It doesn’t feel like a coincidence that there has been a series of state ethics complaints filed against Trump administration lawyers, including Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and federal prosecutors handling immigration cases. President Donald Trump’s polarizing pardon attorney Ed Martin is currently facing just such a complaint from the D.C. Bar.

As outlined in the Federal Registerthe proposal argues that “political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process.” Of course, even if it were true that frivolous complaints were being filed against Justice Department lawyers, state bar grievance authorities should be able to weed them out just as effectively as the department’s own investigators. In fact, having an independent review process would provide more credibility than the DOJ would in dismissing such claims.

Federal law requires all federal prosecutors to comply with the ethics rules of the state where they practice law, including the District of Columbia. The new rule requires Justice Department lawyers to obey the substance of their state’s ethics rules, but gives the DOJ the authority to investigate violations. According to the proposal, whenever a bar grievance is filed, “the Department will have the right to review the allegations in the first instance and shall request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department’s review.”

From there, multiple scenarios are possible. First, “if the Attorney General decides not to complete her review,” the state bar disciplinary authorities “may resume their investigations or disciplinary hearings.” Second, if the attorney general finds misconduct, “the State bar disciplinary authorities will then have the option of beginning or resuming their investigations or disciplinary proceedings” and, if appropriate, “to impose additional sanctions beyond those already imposed by the Department, including suspension or permanent disbarment.”

But what is missing from the language of the rule itself is a potential third scenario. What if the attorney general clears the attorney of misconduct? On that, the rule is silent.

Say, for example, a federal prosecutor in Minnesota is accused of making false representations to an immigration judge. The judge or opposing party could file a grievance with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Under the new rule, the state bar would be required to stand down and await a DOJ investigation, with no provisions for time limits or transparency. Of course, even the delay could compromise the subsequent Minnesota probe. But if the Justice Department clears the lawyer, it is also unclear what happens next. According to Bloomberg“If the DOJ finds no violation, that blocks the state from investigating the alleged infraction.” This conclusion may be a fair inference for a department that has thrown its weight around. According to the proposed rule, “the Attorney General retains the discretion to displace State bar enforcement and to create an entirely Federal enforcement mechanism.”

But even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion. According to a comment posted by the Illinois State Bar Association, the DOJ is attempting to “shield” its lawyers from accountability. The proposed rule also includes an ominous provision that if bar disciplinary authorities refuse the attorney general’s request, “the Department shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General’s review of the allegations.”

Even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion.

In the decades since the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department has conducted robust investigations of allegations of ethical misconduct by its own attorneys and imposed discipline. In fact, it was common for state bar authorities to wait for the DOJ to complete its investigations before initiating their own probes, because the federal process held attorneys to standards even higher than state ethics rules. But that landscape changed last year, when Bondi fired the head of the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and its chief ethics officer. Now there is a risk that DOJ lawyers will be even further sheltered from meaningful ethical oversight.

In the first nine days of the 30-day notice and comment period, the proposed rule has attracted more than 30,000 comments. And once implemented, the rule will no doubt invite legal challenges and ultimately could be struck down. But until then, it threatens to give carte blanche to DOJ lawyers who represent the Trump administration not just zealously but with impunity, knowing that the attorney general can simply delay or even block state bar ethics complaints. And the rule represents one more openly regressive blow against the checks and balances that are essential to democracy.

Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

6 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

6 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

6 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.