Trump’s corruption crisis: How America’s anti-corruption safeguards are being dismantled

From the report

The United States has long presented itself as a global champion of transparency, accountability and the fight against corruption. Successive administrations, regardless of political affiliation, have supported efforts to expose financial crimes, prosecute bribery and strengthen democratic institutions. Yet under President Donald Trump’s second administration, that commitment is facing an unprecedented test. The growing intersection of presidential business interests, weakened oversight institutions and the rollback of anti-corruption policies raises serious questions about the integrity of American democracy and Washington’s credibility abroad.

Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 has been accompanied by a dramatic retreat from established ethical standards. During his first term, he faced criticism over the use of Trump-branded properties for political events and the accommodation of foreign delegations at his Washington hotel. However, his second term has brought a much broader set of concerns, involving personal enrichment, weakened financial transparency requirements and the dismantling of institutions designed to hold public officials accountable. The Republican-led Congress has largely failed to provide meaningful resistance, allowing many of these developments to proceed with limited scrutiny.

One of the clearest examples is the administration’s treatment of independent government watchdogs. Trump removed at least 22 inspectors general during his first 18 months back in office, while 27 inspector general positions remained vacant shortly before the November 2026 midterm elections. These nonpartisan officials play a crucial role in identifying government waste, fraud, misconduct and abuse of authority. Their removal, reportedly without the required congressional notification, undermines institutional independence and weakens the mechanisms through which public officials are held accountable. A federal judge subsequently ruled that the administration’s failure to follow the required procedures was unlawful.