Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump has changed his tune on conflicts of interest. That’s a bad sign.

Published

on

Trump has changed his tune on conflicts of interest. That’s a bad sign.

Donald Trump’s first term as president was plagued by unprecedented conflicts of interest. This time around, the possibilities for corruption are worse, and we risk billionaires and foreign governments around the world thinking of U.S. policy as up for sale to the highest bidder.

When Trump ran for president in 2016, he deployed the rhetoric of anti-corruption and voluntarily adhered to at least some ethics norms. He promised to “drain the swamp,” leaning in part on his status as a billionaire to depict himself as immune to interest groups. He declined his presidential salary. He did not fulfill promises to completely self-fund his campaign, but his own expenditures and his rhetoric were significant and a part of his political brand. He said he sold all his stock.

It’s possible Trump’s second term will make his first look like a paragon of ethical governance by comparison.

As we all know, this was far from adequate for walling off Trump from conflicts of interest. He refused to divest from the Trump Organization, conducted official government business at his own properties and allowed special interest groups to hold events at them. Ultimately Trump was able to enrich himself using his position, and his vast business holdings allowed foreign governmentsor anyone with money, to try boosting his company’s bottom line as a way to try to extract or sweeten policy decisions. As Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington put it in 2021, Trump’s donation of his presidential salary “was merely a fig leaf to cover up four years of brazen corruption.”

It’s possible Trump’s second term will make his first look like a paragon of ethical governance by comparison.

Notably, Trump hasn’t been emphasizing, however questionably, independence or ethics. He apparently doesn’t feel an obligation to even pay lip service to the principle of insulation from special interests. And that might be a harbinger of things to come.

As The Washington Post reports in an excellent overview, this time there will be many more ways for Trump to enrich himself using the White House. Trump’s financial situation has changed since the end of his first term. The Trump Organization has a variety of large, ongoing international deals, including properties in Saudi Arabia and Oman, which could influence his policy outlook in the Middle East. He owns billions of dollars’ worth of shares in his social media company Truth Social, and he has said he will not be selling them. He has a cryptocurrency business.

Truth Social, in particular, creates a new setup for generating possible conflicts of interest for Trump. “The ability to influence Trump’s net worth with relative impunity goes up when there’s a publicly traded stock associated with him,” Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, a public interest watchdog, told me. Think about it this way: It’s a lot easier for somebody to buy and sell shares (or hire someone else to) of a publicly traded company and say it’s purely about money — and not political influence — than it is when dropping a ton of cash on events at Trump properties. In other words, people can help enrich (or hurt) Trump’s wealth with a more robust kind of plausible deniability. And it’s logistically easier as well.

And as Trump contemplates hiring the first-ever crypto czar for the White House, there is no way to rule out that Trump’s decision-making on regulating the industry won’t be influenced by his own financial interest in the industry.

Trump is also on stronger legal footing than during his first term. Not only does long-standing legal doctrine make it difficult to block Trump from enriching himself using the presidency, but the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling makes it even harder. If Trump were to craft policies in response to bribes or implied bribes from donors or foreign governments, he will know that the Supreme Court just said that if a president is exercising the powers of the presidency, he or she cannot be held criminally responsible. Hauser says that Trump likely views the ruling as a powerful “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

On top of all this, it’s hard to imagine Trump not feeling emboldened by his serial successes as a political escape artist. He has returned to the White House after two impeachments, an attempt to overthrow the 2020 election results with a violent mob, 34 felony convictions, a verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and many other transgressions of civic norms and human decency. At this point, with the wind at his back and the courts on his side, Trump is set to take what he wants and do so with impunity.

Zeeshan Aleem

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

What the DOJ’s Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is really about

Published

on

ByMichael Edison Hayden

As one of the most high-profile employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for five years — and as someone who has been outspokenly critical of the organization — I never once heard of the program that allegedly involved paying sources within the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance and Aryan Nations until the Justice Department published its indictment this week.

What I did hear, frequently, was people in the MAGA movement saying we were some kind of criminal syndicate — part of a sustained propaganda effort to delegitimize the work we did tracking and labeling extremist groups.

Although I find the notion of paying extremists distasteful, even unethical, the indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda. And, the SPLC, for its part, has called these charges “false allegations.”

One quote from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s press conference about the charges against the SPLC stood out to me as particularly absurd:

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” he said on Tuesday afternoon.

Imagine, for a moment, believing the SPLC — or any other civil rights organization — needed to fraudulently manufacture racism to sell it in today’s America. Just two months ago, the president shared an artificial intelligence-generated video depicting his Black predecessor and his predecessor’s Black wife as primates. In early 2025, the Trump administration suspended refugee admissions from majority non-white countries while investing in a special program to fast-track white South African Afrikaners into the United States. Racism is not a rare commodity in this country to be manufactured — it’s cheap and easy to find.

A closer look at the indictment raises more red flags. For one, the KKK, National Alliance and Aryan Nations have been largely defanged for years. You rarely hear those names now unless you’re a historian focused on the white supremacist movement. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of criminal wrongdoing on its own, but it does show that this DOJ, in 2026, had to reach back as far as 2013 to find a relatively obscure SPLC program — one that, as a former spokesperson, I had never even heard of.

Another issue is the indictment’s suggestion that the SPLC played a role in planning the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, based on the claim that an informant was “part of a leadership group.” The idea that an informant could have planted the seed for a gathering of white supremacists of that magnitude is completely implausible. We don’t need to speculate about the origins of that deadly event: Unite the Right was effectively a sequel to a similar rally in Charlottesville in May 2017, driven by widespread outrage within the movement over the removal of Confederate statues. Unicorn Riot preserved reams of Discord logs attesting to it.

The indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda.

So, leaving open the possibility that something comes out in the trial that I don’t know about yet, these charges look like a piece of political theater to shore up a wayward MAGA base beleaguered by the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein and an increasingly unwieldy debacle in Iran. It’s a MAGA base that understands the SPLC as one of the primary villains in its propaganda stories and enjoys seeing it suffer.

But if the DOJ argues that paying informants furthers hate, and that this makes the use of paid informants fraudulent, won’t the SPLC’s lawyers simply demonstrate how those efforts contributed to these groups no longer being around? If the SPLC propped up the National Alliance to defraud donors, why is it essentially defunct? Why does the once robust Aryan Nations group no longer exist?

If you’ve read this far and assumed I have an incentive to support my former employer, I don’t. I have a different life now — with a book out, a podcast and teaching. After producing some of the SPLC’s more notable investigative stories from 2018 to 2023, I’ve repeatedly criticized them in media appearances.

As chronicled in my book, “Strange People on the Hill,” the SPLC settled with me out of court after I raised allegations of racial discrimination and union busting against them. I have also publicly accused the organization of deliberately taking a lower profile during President Donald Trump’s second term — hoping to evade the kind of targeting that is befalling it now. The SPLC has done many things over the years, good and bad. It has been invaluable in tracing how MAGA brought fringe racist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement. It has also been clumsy, reactionary and, at times, foolish. This program involving paid informants may indeed be one of those clumsy and foolish chapters.

But to understand why a weaponized DOJ might choose this particular case amid all of the white-collar crimes it isn’t pursuing in America today, you first need to understand the narrative that’s been built around the SPLC for years — and how useful it has become to the corrupt men who run this country.

Michael Edison Hayden

Michael Edison Hayden is a leading expert on far-right extremism in the United States. His debut book, “Strange People on Blue Light News”— a chronicle of a West Virginia town in the five years following a white nationalist group’s purchase of a local castle — will be published by Bold Type Books/Hachette on April 7, 2026. Hayden also co-hosts the podcast, “Posting Through It,” with new episodes released every Monday and Thursday.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

Published

on

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

A Virginia judge on Wednesday blocked the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the state to redraw its congressional and legislative maps, less than 24 hours after voters approved the measure.

The rulingissued by Tazewell County Circuit Court, halts state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which sought to overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process.

This latest move prevents the Virginia Department of Elections and other officials from implementing the new redistricting referendum unless it is overturned by a higher court.

Other states attempting similar redistricting moves have faced lengthy legal battlesleaving the ultimate outcome uncertain.

Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday that the redistricting referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how such amendments must be approved and submitted to voters.

Hurley said the proposal had not been properly authorized by the General Assembly before being submitted to voters. The judge also called the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the measure to voters.

The attorney general’s office said in a statement that it plans to immediately appeal the decision.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Redistricting has long been a contentious issue in Virginia, as in many states, with debates often centered on partisan gerrymandering and the fairness of electoral maps.

The move was considered a victory for Democrats and could offer a potential boost for the party as they head into the midterms because the proposed redraw could expand their advantage to 10-1.

For now, the judge’s order leaves Virginia’s redistricting process unchanged and raises new questions about the viability of reform efforts moving forward. Both sides are likely to press ahead with a prolonged legal fight.

The Virginia Supreme Court paused an earlier rulingby Hurley ahead of the referendum, which allowed Tuesday’s vote to move forward while it reviews the case, which remains pending.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

Published

on

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

The prediction market Kalshi has suspended and fined three political candidates after an internal investigation found they placed bets on the outcomes of their own elections.

It marks one of the most significant steps yet by a U.S. prediction market to police insider behavior as the industry rapidly expands ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Prediction markets, which allow users to buy and sell contracts tied to real-world outcomes, have surged in popularity but remain under intense scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Prediction markets can be opened for any world event from election results to economic indicators to whether President Donald Trump will drink water during the State of the Union.

The candidates include Matt Kleina candidate in the Democratic primary for Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District; Ezekiel Enriquezwho competed in the Republican primary for Texas’ 21st Congressional District; and Mark Morana former Democrat running as an independent candidate in Virginia’s U.S. Senate primary.

The three cases involved what Kalshi has described as “political insider trading,” violating exchange rules approved by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates how platforms like Kalshi operate and are designed to prevent insider trading and conflicts of interest in event-based markets.

Kalshi said the candidates violated its rules by trading on markets in which they had direct influence. Under Kalshi’s policies, individuals who can affect the outcome of an event, such as candidates in their own races, are prohibited from participating in related contracts.

Five-year suspensions and financial penalties were imposed on all three individuals, according to regulatory documents. Klein and Enriquez accepted responsibility through settlements, resulting in reduced sanctions. Disciplinary action was taken against Moran, who acknowledged placing a wager on his own candidacy in what he described as an attempt to draw attention to perceived flaws in the system.

“Finally, one of the moments I’ve been waiting for. YES, I did bet ~$100 on myself on Kalshi because I wanted to get caught…,” Moran said in a lengthy poston X.

“I traded $100 on myself, knowing this would happen (also knowing that I wouldn’t be vying for the democratic nomination) and the attention it would create to highlight how this company is destroying young men and as Senator I will go after Kalshi,” he said.

Klein was fined $539.85, Enriquez received a $784.20 penalty and Moran faces the largest fine at $6,229.30.

“Just like in traditional financial markets, bad actors will try to cheat. Regulated exchanges must constantly evolve and adapt their systems to address insider threats,” Bobby DeNault, the head of enforcement and legal counsel at Kalshi, said in a press release. “These three cases are an example of how developing proactive engineering solutions can help identify illicit trading activity.”

Kalshi said the suspensions underscore its commitment to maintaining fair markets. The company had already moved in recent months to tighten restrictionsincluding plans to preemptively block politicians and athletes from trading on their own campaigns or sporting events. Those measures came amid mounting bipartisan concern in Washington that prediction markets could enable insider trading or manipulation if left unchecked.

The controversy surrounding the three candidates isn’t the first wave of enforcement actions. Earlier this year, Kalshi penalizeda California gubernatorial candidate and a social media influencer for similar violations.

Regulators are also paying closer attention. The CFTC has increased its scrutiny of insider trading cases, while states and federal lawmakers consider new restrictions on the industry. Congress is also considering legislationthat could impose new limits on prediction markets or restrict participation by certain groups, including elected officials and government employees.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending