Trump Just Made Bribing Politicians Legal Again

Buried in Donald Trump’s rescission of dozens of Biden administration executive orders, the president has reversed a rule that thwarted the power of lobbyists in Washington. 

Biden’s Executive Order 13989, titled “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel,” required members of the executive branch to sign an ethics pledge stating they would not receive gifts from lobbyists or lobbying organizations. 

The Biden-era pledge also included several clauses related to a “revolving door ban,” which prohibited all employees entering the government from working with regulations and contracts related to their former employer or former clients for a period of two years from their appointment. 

The revolving door ban also prohibits lobbyists joining the government from working on matters that they had personally lobbied for or engaged in, participating in the “specific issue area in which that particular matter falls,” or seeking employment with an agency they had lobbied within two years of their appointment. 

The pledge included a “golden parachute” agreement, where employees had to agree not to accept payment from their former employer to join the administration. 

The ethics commitment was part of Biden’s efforts to crack down on shadow lobbying, by which former government officials are able to influence policy without registering as lobbyists. 

Clearly, Trump doesn’t have the same concerns. At the start of his first administration, Trump imposed a similar, even harsher rule against lobbying that prevented his former employees from lobbying for five years. He repealed that order in 2021. Dozens of Trump’s aides were able to get round that rule anyway because it was only ever weakly enforced, according to Open Secrets.   

Trump has rescinded the Biden version of that executive order as part of one of his own first executive orders that repealed more than 75 of Biden’s executive orders. 

Under Trump, it will be legal to bribe politicians again, the revolving door of Washington will continue to swing, and calls to “drain the swamp” will fade into nothing more than a dull murmur. 

New York City Mayor Eric Adams sat for an interview on The Tucker Carlson Show, completing his conservative evolution in desperate hopes for a pardon from President Trump.

“The Eric Adams interview. Out tonight” Carlson posted on X Tuesday, with a teaser of said interview attached. 

“People often say ‘Well you know, you don’t sound like a Democrat.… You seem to have left the party,” Adams said in the clip, with dramatic music playing in the background. “No, the party left me, and it left working-class people.” 

Adams went on to state that his indictment on five federal corruption charges was simply punishment for speaking out against Democrats’ handling of the border. He took a more Trump-adjacent tone on the matter, referring to undocumented immigrants as “dangerous” people who “snuck in” to this country. 

The clip continues as Adams and Carlson exchange some back and forth. Carlson posits that New York may have “committed an act of insurrection” by declaring itself a sanctuary city. Adams noted that immigrants shouldn’t be “rounded up in the middle of the night” but bristled at the notion of New York being a sanctuary city. “We’re not welcoming them; we’re very clear.” 

“We were getting Venezuelan gang leaders that were coming to the city creating crimes,” Adams continued. 

“And so you tell the president and his aides this, and what do they say?” asked Carlson.

“Be a good Democrat, Eric.” 

This interview is Adams’s latest stop on his quest for a presidential pardon. The embattled mayor is doing everything he can to align himself with the MAGA right. He requested a meeting with Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, in December, met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, and was at Trump’s inauguration yucking it up with Jake and Logan Paul. 

The Trump administration on Monday revoked a Biden administration order that prohibited Immigration and Customs Enforcement from detaining undocumented immigrants near schools, places of worship, and other “sensitive locations.”

In a statement the following day, Trump’s acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman announced that the Biden administration’s guidelines on these areas were being rescinded, as well as an end to what the Trump administration has termed the “the broad abuse of humanitarian parole.”

“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,” the statement said.

The policy change has been in the works for months, as the conservative manifesto Project 2025 included provisions on ICE being allowed to make arrests anywhere. NBC News reported last month about Trump’s plans to end the restrictions on where immigration arrests can take place.

The Biden administration’s order dates back to rules issued in 2011 under the Obama administration. In October 2021, DHS Secretary Antonio Mayorkas expanded the locations to include domestic violence shelters, food banks, counseling facilities, disaster response centers, churches, rallies, and parades.

The move is a return to, and possibly expansion of, the policy under the first Trump administration. From 2017 to 2020, there were at least “63 planned and five exigent ICE arrests at or near a sensitive location,” according to an NBC analysis of ICE data. It’s directly targeting what’s known as the sanctuary movement, which seeks to protect undocumented immigrants seeking refuge at places of worship.

With the Trump administration’s policy change, the public will likely see images and videos of ICE detaining immigrants without regard to the location, in places where children, the sick, and worshippers are present. It seems as though the ugly P.R. resulting from such raids is a secondary concern to Trump, who wants to deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible. Perhaps the spectacle may be the whole point.

A flurry of executive orders that President Donald Trump signed into place Monday night included one that cemented language at the executive level to delegitimize transgender identities. But within the fold of that order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” lay another damaging detail: the elevation of fetal personhood to the national stage.

“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the order reads in part. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

Unfortunately, there seems to be a misunderstanding by the executive order’s authors: All fetuses have phenotypically female genitalia until they reach six to seven weeks of gestation, at which point some fetuses can start to be visually differentiated as male, according to the National Institutes of Health.

By describing a fetus as a person from conception, Trump has legitimized fetal personhood. Pro-abortion activists have long warned that fetal personhood, an ideology that calls for providing equal human rights to a fetus (even if it’s a cluster of cells), will effectively strip pregnant people of their own rights. The legal language employed by fetal personhood also effectively categorizes any person receiving an abortion at any stage as a murderer.

But the concept of fetal personhood is not only weaponized to limit abortion access—it’s also been leveraged at the state level to restrict in vitro fertilization access for intended parents in places such as Alabama, and even used to limit access to forms of birth control. In May, the Texas GOP attempted to transform fetal personhood into law, claiming that “abortion is not healthcare, it is homicide,” and called on lawmakers to extend “equal protection of the laws to all preborn children from the moment of fertilization.”

Republican lawmakers in Kentucky, Georgia, and South Carolina introduced similar legislation in 2023. All of those bills were defeated, with even some state Republicans deeming them too extreme.

Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth’s former sister-in-law accused him of making his second wife fear for her safety, according to an affidavit shared with the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

The stunning new allegations once more raise questions about the FBI’s background check on Hegseth, which reportedly failed to speak to multiple witnesses.

Danielle Hegseth submitted the affidavit after the ranking member on the committee, Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, issued a letter to her requesting her knowledge of the Fox News star’s “fitness to occupy this important position,” NBC reported.

“As I have said for months, the reports of Mr. Hegseth’s history of alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and public misconduct necessitate an exhaustive background investigation,” Reed said in a statement, adding that the behavior would disqualify any service member from a position of leadership, let alone running the Pentagon. “I have been concerned that the background check process has been inadequate, and this sworn affidavit confirms that fact.”

Danielle’s affidavit described “volatile and threatening conduct” from Hegseth that made his wife at the time, Samantha Hegseth, fear for her safety, according to NBC. In a statement to the network, Samantha Hegseth dismissed the allegations, refusing to comment on her marriage to Donald Trump’s defense nominee, and saying that she did not believe the information shared in the affidavit was accurate.

“First and foremost, I have not and will not comment on my marriage to Pete Hegseth. I do not have representatives speaking on my behalf, nor have I ever asked anyone to share or speak about the details of my marriage on my behalf, whether it be a reporter, a committee member, a transition team member, etc.,” she told NBC in an email.

“There was no physical abuse in my marriage,” she continued. “This is the only further statement I will make to you, I have let you know that I am not speaking and will not speak on my marriage to Pete. Please respect this decision.”

Hegseth, a 44-year-old former infantry officer, has been under fire since Trump tapped him to lead the Pentagon. The heat has primarily stemmed from a shocking 2017 police report that revealed the Army veteran was accused of raping an attendee at a Republican women’s conference in Monterey, California. Hegseth has also admitted to several other scandals, including five affairs that he had during his first marriage.

But Hegseth’s FBI background check ahead of his Senate hearing barely touched on the scandals, failing to interview Hegseth’s ex-wives or the woman who accused him.

This story has been updated.