全球智库信息集成服务系统

One of the few constants throughout the Donald J. Trump administration has been corruption. Since his first day as president, when Trump took the wholly unprecedented step of refusing to divest¹ from his private businesses, his administration has been characterized by an unending effort by him, his family, and his senior advisers to abuse their political power for personal gain.

Of course, those efforts started long before Trump was elected; in just one example, Trump had the federal government pay him more than $1.5 million² for the Secret Services’ use of his private plane during the campaign. These efforts to enrich himself and those around him continued through the inauguration, in which Trump abandoned past practice to allow for unlimited donations from wealthy individuals and corporations so he could raise record sums—reportedly more than $107 million. He then used that money to help his friends, including paying a company owned by Melania Trump’s friend and senior advisor, $26 million³ to help plan the event. To this day, some of the money raised still has not been accounted⁴ for.

In one near-constant reminder of Trump’s flouting of ethical requirements, he has maintained ownership of a downtown Washington, D.C., hotel that he rents from the government, effectively acting as both tenant and landlord.⁵ The hotel has become a hot spot⁶ for foreign dignitaries seeking to win favor with the new administration. And Trump uses the government to promote his properties,⁷ including his Mar-a-Lago resort where membership fees doubled⁸ to $200,000 one year after he won the presidency, giving members the chance to potentially influence the president for the cost of a membership.⁹

Those in Trump’s orbit have also benefited from newfound power. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, was able to obtain sizeable loans¹⁰ for his own debt-ridden real estate business after holding meetings with a private equity fund and a bank at the White House. In the case of that private equity fund, there was reportedly even discussion of its founder getting a position in the White House.¹¹ Reports now indicate that the heavily indebted flagship Manhattan property owned by Kushner’s family will be rescued by an infusion of millions of dollars from a company linked to the government of Qatar.¹² The president’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, accepted millions of dollars from foreign and domestic corporations through a shell company he established a month before the 2016 election.¹³ He promised access to the president to at least one corporation, and received more than half a million dollars from an entity closely tied to a sanctioned Russian oligarch after meeting with that oligarch in Trump Tower.¹⁴ He also reportedly received a secret payment of at least $400,000 to set up a meeting between the Ukrainian president and Trump¹⁵ and solicited $1 million from the government of Qatar, which Qatar declined.¹⁶

Then there’s Carl Icahn, the financier with wide-ranging financial interests, who served as Trump’s special adviser on issues relating to regulatory reform. While Icahn was an adviser to the president, he did not get paid by the White House, and thus argued he need not divest from his businesses¹⁷—much like the president. Yet he used his authority to try to advance his business interests,¹⁸ seeking regulatory changes that would help him and hurt competitors. Icahn eventually left his White House position due to scrutiny of his activities and is currently under federal investigation¹⁹ for his actions.

These actions, and many more, send a clear signal: In the Trump administration, corruption is not just accepted, it is encouraged. Trump has created a culture of corruption, where it’s expected that those with public power will wield it for private gain. And this culture has, in turn, attracted those who are themselves corrupt and seeking to profit from this opportunity.

This culture of corruption has wide-ranging effects. When the interests of the politically connected are put first, it’s at the expense of people without the means to pay for lobbyists in Washington. When the interests of foreign governments are put first, it’s at the expense of America’s safety. And when the priorities of elected leaders are shaped only by those with money or power, then the needs of the American people remain unmet.

A culture of corruption also weakens society as a whole. It leads to a perverse set of incentives, where those who are corrupt advance, while those who are honest are forced out of positions of power. It incentivizes incompetence among public officials because people are judged not by their ability to do their job, but rather on their ability to conceal or participate in unethical, and even illegal, behavior. Moreover, it weakens the societal trust that is the cornerstone of a robust economy and civil society.

As then-FBI Director Robert Mueller noted²⁰ more than seven years ago when discussing the cost of corruption in the context of public officials colluding with organized crime:

You might pay more for a gallon of gas. You might pay more for a luxury car from overseas. You will pay more for health care, mortgages, clothes, and food. Yet we are concerned with more than just the financial impact. These groups may infiltrate our businesses. They may provide logistical support to hostile foreign powers. They may try to manipulate those at the highest levels of government. Indeed, these so-called ‘iron triangles’ of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat.

Given these far-reaching effects, it is critical to both understand the magnitude of the threat, as well as the steps we can take to combat it. This report examines the risks to our national security, economic well-being, and national priorities posed by a culture of corruption. Consider that this culture of corruption has:

• Left the United States unwilling to fully confront and thwart Russian aggression
• Resulted in the interests of the Turkish government being put before those of the United States
• Exacerbated tensions in the Middle East
• Led to efforts to help payday lenders by increasing borrowers’ costs by $6 billion a year²¹
• Spurred efforts to help politically connected coal companies by increasing consumers’ electricity costs by up to $11.8 billion each year²²
• Created a political system hyperfocused on giving huge tax breaks to wealthy donors and large corporations at the expense of programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
• Resulted in regulatory giveaways to corporations that will cost workers $1.2 billion in overtime pay²³ and $17 billion in retirement savings each year²⁴

The report also examines how corruption weakens U.S. government and critical societal bonds, leading to millions of dollars in wasteful spending and incompetence at the highest levels of power. This report shows that corruption is just as corrosive for businesses as government. It also explores the serious anti-corruption measures that successful businesses insist upon and asks why the same should not be expected from elected officials and political appointees. Finally, the report ends with recommendations—concrete steps that can be taken to stop the most pernicious aspects of Trump’s culture of corruption and prevent them from continuing to cost American families now and into the future.

Trump’s culture of corruption poses serious risks to the nation’s security. The president and his senior advisers deal with issues that have effects across the globe—in making those decisions, it is critical that they do so based on America’s national interests. But the Trump administration—has on numerous occasions—seemed to do the opposite; shaping foreign policy based on what is in their personal interests, or those of foreign benefactors.

Take the Trump administration’s response to Russia’s attack on the U.S. electoral system. The American  intelligence community unequivocally determined²⁵ that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to aid Donald Trump. In response, then-President Barack Obama issued²⁶ sweeping sanctions to punish Russia for its interference.

Trump, however, has continually sought to roll back Russian sanctions. In the immediate aftermath of Obama’s sanctions, while still president-elect, Trump’s designee for national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, contacted Russia and told them not to escalate²⁷ in response to the sanctions. Senior U.S. officials viewed that effort as a signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from the Obama imposed punishment. Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI²⁸ about his conversations with Russia.

Shortly after Trump became president, the White House sought²⁹ to lift sanctions against Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea and invasion of Eastern Ukraine. Later, Trump fought³⁰ congressional efforts to codify and expand the Obama sanctions and prevent him from weakening them. After Congress nearly unanimously passed the sanctions legislation, the Trump administration repeatedly undermined³¹ the bill’s implementation, before finally moving forward³² with a delayed and incomplete sanctions package against a select group of Russians who interfered in the election. Even after taking this legally required action, Trump later walked back³³ further Russian sanctions that his own U.N. ambassador said would be issued and declared that there would be no further sanctions levied against Russia without a triggering event.

The Trump administration’s foot-dragging ignores a present danger that must be addressed. For its part, Russia continues to target the United States³⁴ in cyberspace, including probing ways to attack American infrastructure such as U.S. nuclear power plants, electric grids, and election infrastructure. Trump’s own director of national intelligence has told the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that “the United States is under attack.”³⁵ But because the Trump administration has taken only limited steps to counter that aggression and has actively undermined efforts by Congress to do so, the United States is inviting further attacks. As Adm. Mike Rogers, Trump’s director of the National Security Agency said,³⁶ “my concern is, I believe that President Putin has clearly come to the conclusion there’s little price to pay here, and that therefore I can continue this activity.” And it’s not just Russia: The lack of effective countermeasures will encourage other adversaries to probe our defenses, including China and North Korea.

Trump is not the only government official who has appeared to let personal interests cloud his judgment when it comes to national security affairs. After Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser, it came to light that he had been paid more than $500,000³⁷ to secretly advocate for the interests of Turkey, including while he was on the Trump campaign. He seemingly continued to advocate for positions beneficial to Turkey during the presidential transition and into Trump’s presidency; case in point, Flynn blocked³⁸ an effort to arm Syrian Kurds in order to combat the Islamic State group (IS), a decision that was in line with the Turkish government’s strong opposition to arming the Kurds. Apparently, others in the administration thought the effort would be important to combatting IS, since after Flynn was forced out of the White House, the administration moved forward with the plan.³⁹

White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner—the president’s son-in-law—has raised similar concerns about where his loyalties lie. In one striking instance, his real estate business interests may have influenced his foreign policy positions, threatening to destabilize an already challenging situation in the Middle East. As widely reported, Kushner’s real estate company is facing a $1.2 billion debt⁴⁰ for a Manhattan building it owns, and he has been meeting with potential foreign sources of funding to try and make the payment. Reportedly, Kushner’s real estate company had sought a $1 billion investment from Qatar’s minister of finance, funding that was not provided.⁴¹ Just weeks after declining the funding request, Trump unexpectedly sided with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a blockade of Qatar, contrary to the views⁴² of his own departments of State and Defense. Kushner was reportedly⁴³ a major supporter of the blockade, raising questions as to whether his push to ignore Middle East experts and foster tension in the volatile region—potentially putting U.S. troops at risk⁴⁴—was a product of his policy views or payback for Qatar’s business decisions. Subsequently, the Qatari government considered sharing information with Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Robert Mueller about Kushner’s actions,⁴⁵ but decided not to given the fact that talks with the United States had been productive, meaning that they too could potentially have leverage over Kushner in the future.

In a further development, it is now being reported that Kushner Companies will be bailed out by a company co-owned by the government of Qatar,⁴⁶ and that U.S. foreign policy toward Qatar happens to correspond with Qatar’s disposition toward helping the Kushner family.⁴⁷ This type of leverage over a U.S. official by a foreign government is exactly the type of situation that creates significant security risks, which is why U.S. counterintelligence officials are particularly concerned by these types of relationships. In addition to countries in the Middle East, it has been reported that officials in China, Israel, and Mexico have also discussed how to take advantage of Kushner in light of his financial difficulties and varied business holdings.⁴⁸ 

The culture of corruption threatens not only the country’s national security, but also the economic security of millions of Americans. When special deals are given to the politically connected, it’s everyday consumers who frequently pay the price.

Consider the Trump administration’s efforts to help major campaign donor Bob Murray, who heads Murray Energy Corporation, one of the largest coal companies in America. Murray, through his company and its political action committee (PAC), gave hundreds of thousands of dollars⁴⁹ to help elect Trump, including a donation of $100,000 to support Trump’s campaign the day before sending layoff notices to 4,400 workers. After Trump was elected, Murray’s support continued; he gave $300,000⁵⁰ to the president’s inauguration and his company gave a Trump super PAC $1 million.⁵¹ Murray’s company did so in August of 2017, the same time Murray was asking⁵² the administration to use an emergency authority to prop up FirstEnergy Solutions, an energy company that bought billions of dollars in coal from him—and without which he said his company would go bankrupt.⁵³

Murray has seen action on a number of his political priorities. Shortly after Trump was elected, Murray gave the administration a wish list⁵⁴ of regulatory rollbacks he wanted that were focused on undoing clean air and water protections. While the Trump administration has done next to nothing⁵⁵ to help working- or middle-class Americans, it has delivered on the vast majority of items on Murray’s list. One particularly egregious effort was Murray’s request⁵⁶ to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to subsidize specific companies, including FirstEnergy Solutions, at the cost of billions of dollars⁵⁷ to American consumers.

Murray’s proposal to subsidize select coal and nuclear power plants would have upended U.S. energy markets⁵⁸ by favoring less profitable companies—resulting in higher electricity prices for consumers. Despite these huge downsides, Perry did everything in his power to put the proposal in place, claiming it was necessary as a result of a crisis in the nation’s energy grid that his own agency had shown did not exist.⁵⁹ The Perry/Murray proposal would have benefited only a handful of companies⁶⁰—the vast majority of the benefits would go to roughly 10 companies, although it could have been fewer—including FirstEnergy Solutions, and thus Murray Energy. All told, the plan would increase annual consumer costs from $300 million to $11.8 billion a year,⁶¹ without improving the quality of the grid or providing customers with better service.

Ultimately, the tremendous outcry⁶² from diverse stakeholders—including wind, solar, energy storage, natural gas, and petroleum industry trade groups—stopped Perry’s proposal, as they petitioned the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which rejected⁶³ the proposal. Murray made clear where he placed the blame for the failure to prop up one of his best customers, saying, “there are folks in the administration that have their own agenda, rather than President Trump’s. There are some staffers who have gone contrary to the wishes of our president.” ⁶⁴

Not to be outdone, Murray has continued to seek a different bailout from the Department of Energy to keep his customer afloat.⁶⁵ FirstEnergy Solutions has also gotten into the act, paying more than $300,000 to a lobbyist who formerly ran Perry’s presidential campaign in 2016 and helped sheperd him through his confirmation as secretary of energy to make its case for a bailout.⁶⁶ This lobbyist also is a big supporter of a Trump super PAC, which led to an invitation for him to attend a dinner with Trump; the next day, Trump mentioned the possibility of a bailout for FirstEnergy Solutions in a campaign speech in West Virginia.⁶⁷ And as this report was going to print, Trump directed Perry to prepare to use emergency authority to move forward with this new bailout, which would drive up energy prices for millions of Americans.

Payday lenders have also benefited from Trump’s culture of corruption, successfully lobbying the Trump administration for favors after giving large amounts of money to Trump and other top officials. Payday lenders and auto title lenders, who frequently charge exorbitant interest rates in excess of 300 percent annually, take around $8 billion⁶⁸ in fees and interest from struggling families every year. After Trump’s election, the nation’s largest payday lender gave $250,000⁶⁹ to his inauguration and another payday lender gave $25,000; the owner of the largest title lender gave $1 million between him and his wife. The payday lending industry even decided⁷⁰ to hold its annual four-day retreat at the Trump National Doral Golf Club. Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget and Trump’s choice to head the agency that regulates payday lenders, also received financial support from the industry. Before moving into the executive branch, Mulvaney received nearly $63,000⁷¹ from payday lenders while he was a congressman.

Trump’s appointment of Mulvaney as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which regulates payday lenders, was a huge gift to the industry. Mulvaney has been clear about the importance of campaign contributions in his policymaking; while head of CFPB, he told a group of bank executives, “we had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you were a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you were a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”⁷² And Mulvaney has long been a major supporter of payday lenders, repeatedly voting⁷³ to undermine laws to regulate the industry while in the state legislature and U.S. Congress. Mulvaney even advocated⁷⁴ for the CFPB to create an advisory board made up of “non-bank lenders, including payday lenders” so that they could have greater influence over the agency’s rules.

Since taking over the CFPB, Mulvaney has taken a wide range of steps to help payday lenders at the expense of consumers. He ended⁷⁵ a four-year investigation into payday lender World Acceptance Corporation, which had previously given him $4,500 in donations, and declared no enforcement actions would be brought. He dropped another case against payday lenders who provided loans with interest rates as high as 950 percent a year.⁷⁶ Mulvaney is considered such a friend of the industry that a former head of a payday lender that had been under CFPB investigation actually reached out⁷⁷ to him to ask that she be considered for the position of head of the agency. But the biggest giveaway to industry could be Mulvaney’s move to reconsider⁷⁸ a major rule regulating the worst abuses of payday lenders. The rule has been estimated to save individual borrowers more than $530 a year,⁷⁹ totaling around $6 billion⁸⁰ for the 12 million people who would be affected. And payday lenders are not the only campaign donors Mulvaney has gone easy on. He also halted⁸¹ CFPB’s investigation into the Equifax data breach that put the personal data of millions of people at risk, after previously receiving thousands of dollars⁸² in campaign contributions from Equifax’s PAC. And Mulvaney has threatened to hide the CFPB’s public complaint database, which tracks complaints against financial companies; 19 of the 30 companies with the most complaints had previously contributed to Mulvaney, totaling $140,500.⁸³

In addition to specific instances of favoritism, corruption leads to misplaced priorities from lawmakers. Constantly surrounded by donors, and constantly seeking to please them in order to obtain further contributions, politicians can adopt the priorities of the very wealthy as their own.

Take the recently passed tax bill. Originally touted⁸⁴ as a means of helping the middle-class, the final bill was a massive boon for the wealthiest Americans. It creates a number of new loopholes and special rates^{https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/06/04/451570/confronting-cost-trumps-corruption-american-families/}