Each new administration has the power to nominate policymakers and leaders who will help the president execute the goals the American people elected them to put forth. No matter their political allegiance, these appointees are public servants who should be beholden to the highest ethical standards that ensure they will work to advance the public interest.
This was not the case for the first Trump administration. Campaign Legal Center worked tirelessly to hold the president and members of his administration accountable amid the numerous conflicts of interest and violations of ethics policies that defined his term.
As the president-elect begins to fill his second administration, it is critical to keep a close eye on potential conflicts of interest between nominees and the positions they may assume.
Trump’s nominees so far
Following his exit from office, Trump has further consolidated his political allies to a close-knit group of politicians and lawmakers that have sworn fealty to him. His promise to be a “dictator on day one” and efforts to exile members of his political party who he personally disagrees with is an alarming sign of what’s to come: Some of the most important leadership positions in the federal government will be appointed because of loyalty rather than a demonstrated ability to lead.
As these appointments are announced, CLC is carefully monitoring for potential conflicts of interest that may play out in the next four years. We will be keeping a close eye on any existing financial disclosure reports (if a member of Congress is nominated, for example), former employers, financial portfolios, and other high-stakes holdings by nominees or their families.
So far, CLC has identified the following possible conflicts of interest:
- Elon Musk, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): The world’s richest man and fervent Trump surrogate has plenty to gain in a position of power. Trump’s statement about establishing DOGE suggests that it will be comprised of advisors from “outside of government,” which means that Musk and co-chair Vivek Ramaswamy will not be subject to government conflict of interest laws. Musk’s businesses receive billion-dollar government contracts and crucial subsidies that have allowed his satellites and vehicles to dominate their respective industries. This new position may give him unprecedented power to shape regulations, contracts and budgets to advance his personal business goals and disadvantage competitors.
- Tulsi Gabbard, nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI): Gabbard has been accused of parroting propaganda by several lawmakers after reposting Russian claims about U.S. funding in Ukraine. During her 2020 presidential campaign, Gabbard was also found to be portrayed favorably by Russian media outlets over her other nominees, raising questions about her ties to the state. The extent of her connections is unknown; as DNI, Gabbard would be the principal adviser on intelligence matters.
- Matt Gaetz, nominee for U.S. Attorney General: Rep. Gaetz is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use (although the status of the investigation is in question following his resignation from the House). The Department of Justice — which he would head as attorney general — concluded an investigation last year into Gaetz over allegations of sex trafficking and obstruction of justice. Gaetz was not charged.
The legacy of Trump’s first term presidential cabinet
Whether cabinet members with potential conflicts of interest will engage in corrupt behavior is not an unknown concern — Trump’s first presidential cabinet was defined by repeat instances of misuse of taxpayer funds, insufficient financial reporting, and personal political favors, with at least eight cabinet officials embroiled in ethics scandals during the four years of that term. Those included:
- Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who repeatedly used her office staff to help family members who ran a shipping business strongly affiliated with China. A formal investigation by the Department’s inspector general detailed over a dozen instances of her office handling business with her father and using office funds for personal matters.
- Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, who broke ethics guidelines by accepting high-value gifts and directing office staff to carry out personal affairs. Additionally, his chief of staff forged an email from the Danish government to get taxpayers to cover travel expenses for a 10-day trip to Europe for his wife.
- Department of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who failed on multiple occurrences to properly disclose private plane flights paid for by taxpayers. Zinke also failed to disclose his personal affiliation with a development project taking place on land owned by his foundation in Montana. Zinke has since returned to the House of Representatives.
These instances do not even begin to cover the breadth of ethics violations that defined the first Trump administration. Whether it was top lobbyists altering internal ethics review processes or repeated financial reporting violations that went unpunished, Trump clearly will not hold his allies accountable.
Public trust in our institutions requires that our federal officeholders avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of ethics violations. We are prepared to bring the highest level of transparency and accountability to the incoming administration and will continue to monitor incoming nominees.
When instances of ethics violations become clear in the next four years, CLC will work with its partners to demand internal investigations and accountability measures.
To keep up with potential conflicts of interest as President-elect Trump continues to make his nominations, visit our page.