Behind the Chaos

Donald Trump and Elon Musk seem gleeful about the chaos they have unleashed on the federal workforce. Claims that the onslaught is designed to root out fraud and waste while promoting efficiency are spurious. The examples of waste offered by DOGE are usually erroneous or trivial, and there is nothing efficient about the way agencies are being ravaged. Nor does it make sense to fire inspectors general, the professionals most skilled at addressing corruption.

Is there any method to the madness? Behind the noise there seem to be two objectives. The first is a new form of deregulation. In the past, corporate-friendly administrations sought to diminish oversight of business by rescinding rules and changing laws.

Trump and Musk are instead trying to achieve those objectives by crippling regulatory bodies. This is happening in part by asserting full control over independent agencies and installing loyalists to oversee them. Even more aggressive is the effort to prevent the agencies from functioning by decimating their staff. Regulations don’t mean much if no one is available to investigate non-compliance and take enforcement action. The administration also seems to be testing whether it can get away with unilaterally closing entire agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without the consent of Congress. This is brute force deregulation.

The second objective is to create opportunities for government contractors. Despite the attempt to depict many government functions as redundant or unnecessary, many of the activities being targeted for large-scale staff reductions are not really expendable. By drastically reducing head count, Trump and Musk are creating conditions under which agencies will have no choice but to outsource more work to the private sector.

It is telling that amid all its fabricated charges about waste and abuse, DOGE focuses very little on the major source of fraud in the federal government: dishonest contractors. When it is functioning normally, the Justice Department spends a good portion of its time going after these companies. Violation Tracker documents 4,000 cases brought under the False Claims Act resulting in more than $60 billion in penalties. And those are just the cases in which the contractor got caught.

At times, Musk targets contracts, but they are usually small outlays related to now-taboo areas such as DEI and environmental justice. If he were serious about addressing fraud, he would be singling out large corporations such as Booz Allen and Centene that have been involved in major false claims cases. Companies such as these are presumably being shielded because they are the ones to which agencies will turn for help in performing the functions their diminished staffs can no longer handle.

In some cases, the DOGE offensive may be paving the way not just for outsourcing but for complete privatization. Among the functions said to be candidates for private sector takeover are FEMA disaster relief, NOAA’s National Weather Service, and the Education Department’s student loan program.

There is nothing new, of course, about presidential efforts to reduce business oversight and increase outsourcing. What’s different is the lawless way Trump and Musk are pursuing these aims. And then there’s the added scandal in the fact that Musk personally stands to gain so much from weakened enforcement and expanded contracting.

It is not yet clear how the DOGE juggernaut can be stopped, but for now it is helpful to look behind the theatrics and see whose interests are being served.

A Boon for Bribery

The new Trump Administration has eliminated another significant form of corporate oversight through an executive order suspending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. With a stroke of his Sharpie, Trump has in effect decriminalized bribery by multinational corporations.

A statement accompanying the order claimed the step was needed to “save our country” and that “every policy must be geared toward that which supports the American worker, the American family, and businesses, both large and small, and allows our country to compete with other nations on a very level playing field.”

This is classic MAGA double-speak, trying to make the case that a policy benefiting large dishonest corporations serves the interests of workers, families, and small firms.

That reference to a level playing field is also misleading. Trump tries to give the impression that the U.S. is the only country that prosecutes bribery. In fact, other countries are also active in policing the practice.

In Violation Tracker Global, we document dozens of cases brought by authorities outside the United States. For example, in 2020 Airbus agreed to pay over 2 billion euros to resolve allegations brought by French prosecutors relating to foreign bribery.  In 2017 Rolls-Royce paid over 500 million pounds to resolve a bribery case brought by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office. The Brazilian government has collected the equivalent of several billion dollars through an anti-corruption campaign known as Operation Car Wash.

In numerous large FCPA cases, the U.S. Justice Department worked in concert with prosecutors in other countries. That’s true of the Airbus and Rolls-Royce cases mentioned above as well as investigations of other companies such as ABB Ltd, BAE Systems, and Goldman Sachs.

What Trump also seems to be ignoring is that the Justice Department and the SEC have brought many cases against foreign companies. In fact, of the 122 FCPA cases in the U.S. version of Violation Tracker linked to a large parent, more than half involve firms headquartered abroad. Fifteen of the 20 largest penalties were paid by foreign defendants. By suspending FCPA enforcement, Trump is helping foreign corporations much more than domestic ones.

The final fallacy is the idea that the FCPA has been a substantial burden on corporations. Although the DOJ handles foreign bribery cases as criminal matters, it routinely allows companies to sign deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements—leniency arrangements under which they pay a penalty but do not have to enter a guilty plea. More than 80 percent of all FCPA cases have included one of these agreements.

The theory is that leniency deals will incentivize companies to clean up their practices to avoid a future conviction, yet in some cases DOJ has allowed repeat offenders a second leniency agreement rather than lowering the boom.

In some cases, the DOJ takes the leniency process a step further and resolves FCPA cases through a process called declination. This typically occurs when prosecutors want to reward a company for cooperating with an investigation. The firm agrees to disgorge the profits it received from the illegal activity, and the DOJ essentially drops the case. The most recent example of this occurred in August, when the Boston Consulting Group agreed to disgorge about $14 million related to profits from contracts received as the result of improper payments to government officials in Angola.

All these forms of leniency have not satisfied large corporations, which have complained about the FCPA ever since it was enacted in the wake of widespread revelations of foreign bribery in the 1970s. Now they have finally gotten their wish from a president who serves the interests of big business while pretending to be an economic populist.

Putting Military Families at Risk

I don’t recall Donald Trump saying during the presidential campaign that he planned to make his supporters helpless against predatory lenders and financial scam artists, but that is apparently what he is about to do at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Trump has ousted CFPB director Rohit Chopra, a zealous champion of consumer protection, and given control of the agency to Scott Bessent, the former hedge fund manager who is already serving as Treasury Secretary.

Bessent’s first act was to order a halt to all activities at the CFPB, including rulemaking and enforcement. He issued a statement saying: “I look forward to working with the CFPB to advance President Trump’s agenda to lower costs for the American people and accelerate economic growth.” Translation: I will slash regulation and perpetuate the myth that reduced oversight works to the benefit of consumers.

The firing of Chopra and freezing of CFPB activities come as welcome news to major financial institutions and fly-by-night operators, both of which have sought to neutralize the agency ever since it began operation in 2011. The agency was also a frequent target of criticism from Congressional Republicans, who hated the fact that the law creating the CFPB provided that the director could only be removed for cause. In 2020 the conservative majority of the Supreme Court threw out that provision, meaning that the director could be removed at will by the President.

As shown in Violation Tracker, the CFPB has over its life collected more than $17 billion in fines and settlements, much of which has gone to affected consumers in the form of restitution. The cases, numbering more than 250, have involved a wide range of financial misconduct, from the Wells Fargo bogus account scandal to the deceptive practices of for-profit colleges.

Let’s focus on one subset of cases in which the CFPB has been especially active: cases brought against lenders that prey on military families. The agency has collected more than $146 million in penalties in a dozen such cases. A big share of that total comes from a $92 million settlement reached in 2014 with Colfax Capital and Culver Capital, also known as Rome Finance. The case, brought in cooperation with 13 state attorneys general, accused Rome Finance of luring servicemembers with the promise of instant financing on expensive electronics but then masked the finance charges with inflated prices in marketing materials and later withheld key information on monthly bills. Richard Cordray, CFPB’s director at the time, stated: “Rome Finance’s business model was built on fleecing servicemembers.”

In 2023 the CFPB found that TMX Finance, known as TitleMax, violated the Military Lending Act by extending prohibited title loans to military families, often charging nearly three times more than the 36% annual interest rate cap. The agency said TitleMax tried to hide its unlawful activities by, among other things, altering the personal information of military borrowers to circumvent their protected status. The CFPB also found that TitleMax increased loan payments for borrowers by charging unlawful fees. The agency ordered the company to pay more than $5 million in consumer relief and a $10 million civil money penalty.

Large financial institutions have also been called out by the CFPB for cheating military families. U.S. Bank and one of its nonbank partner companies, Dealers’ Financial Services, were required to return about $6.5 million to servicemembers for failing to properly disclose all the fees charged to participants in the companies’ Military Installment Loans and Educational Services auto loans program, and for misrepresenting the true cost and coverage of add-on products financed along with the auto loans.

Those who would eliminate or defang the CFPB—especially those who take every opportunity to express their support for the troops–should be made to made to acknowledge that their actions will make military families, as well as millions of others, more vulnerable to financial predators.

Attacking DEI, Enabling Discrimination

The early days of Trump 2.0 have been marked by a preoccupation with rooting out every last trace of DEI policies. Many programs are being abolished, and diversity officials are being terminated. The administration even tried to bring all federal grants and loans to a halt in order to make absolutely sure nothing was going out the door that promoted what the Office of Management and Budget called “Marxist equity.” Newly minted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seems to regard DEI as a bigger threat than ISIS.

What was originally a response by the Right to the supposed excesses of wokeness is now starting to resemble a new Red Scare, complete with calls for federal employees to inform on colleagues who try to conceal DEI activities.

The harmful effects of this extend beyond the career prospects of diversity bureaucrats. One example can be found at a federal agency called the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The mission of the OFCCP is to ensure that employers doing business with the federal government comply with laws and regulations regarding workplace discrimination. Given that the feds pay out some $750 billion a year to an estimated three million contractors, the OFCCP is responsible for preventing unfair treatment of a large portion of the workforce.

OFCCP’s ability to do its job has been hampered by a Trump executive order that rescinds legal authority the agency has had since 1965 to investigate discrimination and promote affirmative action (the old name for DEI). The thrust of Trump’s order is to bar the agency from pursuing the DEI portion of its mission, but it is unclear whether it will still be able to hold contractors accountable for discriminating against groups of workers based on gender, race, national origin, or sexual orientation. Instead, the order commands the OFCCP to focus on eradicating DEI, which is depicted as the real discrimination.

Trump’s action seems to put an end to decades of enforcement activity in which the OFCCP pressured companies to change their hiring, promotion, and pay practices. In Violation Tracker we document more than 500 OFCCP cases dating back to 2000.  Among the largest settlements are the following:

In 2017 Qualcomm paid $19.5 million to resolve allegations that it paid female engineers less than their male counterparts.

In 2019 Goldman Sachs paid just under $10 million to settle allegations it engaged in pay discrimination against Black, Hispanic, Asian, and female employees.

About 40 other companies have paid settlements of $1 million or more. Food distributors Sysco and US Foods have been involved in the largest number of cases, with nine each. Scores of Fortune 500 corporations are among those penalized by the OFCCP.

Now the Trump Administration has in effect pardoned these companies for their mistreatment of workers. This is a significant retreat from the principle that taxpayer dollars should not go to the bad actors of the business world—and it is another sign that, despite the populist trappings, MAGA policy ends up serving the interests of corporations.

The Inaugural Rogues Gallery

A news photograph on the inaugural ceremony that ran on the front page of the Wall Street Journal showed Elon Musk right behind Trump and his family members as Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office. It came awfully close to the recent New York cover cartoon depicting Musk putting his hand on the bible along with Trump’s.

Other photos revealed that Musk was not the only corporate figure given a prominent position in the limited confines of the Capitol Rotunda. Prime spots went to a line-up of tech moguls, including Mark Zuckerberg of Meta Platforms, Sundar Pichai of Alphabet/Google, Tim Cook of Apple, and Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com. A presidency that purports to be about economic populism began by seeming to signal that corporate CEOs and billionaires will have an outsized role.

What makes the deference shown to those business figures all the more unseemly is that they head companies with checkered regulatory compliance records. Here are some of their transgressions, as documented in Violation Tracker.

Meta Platforms has racked up more than $7 billion in penalties since 2000. The bulk of that comes from a $5 billion penalty imposed on Facebook in 2019 by the Federal Trade Commission for deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information. Last year, Meta had to pay more than $1 billion to settle allegations by the Texas Attorney General that it captured personal biometric data without authorization.

Alphabet, parent of Google, has amassed $2.7 billion in penalties largely from antitrust, privacy, and other consumer protection cases. Its biggest payout was a $700 million settlement in 2023 with state attorneys general to resolve allegations of monopolistic practices in its app store. The year before, it paid out $391 million to state AGs to settle a case alleging it misled users about the collection and use of their personal data.

Apple has accumulated $1.4 billion in penalties, mainly from cases involving anti-competitive practices and consumer protection violations. For example, in 2020 it paid $113 million to settle a case brought by over 30 state attorneys general in connection with its decision to throttle the performance of iPhones to avoid addressing a problem with battery performance. In 2014 it paid $32 million to resolve FTC allegations it unfairly charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without their parents’ consent.

Amazon has managed to avoid any ten-figure penalties, but it has been penalized much more often than the other tech giants, with 173 entries in Violation Tracker. The largest portion of these involve workplace safety, given the high level of ergonomic injuries in the company’s distribution centers. Recently, OSHA pressed Amazon to sign a corporate-wide agreement to try to improve conditions.

Tesla, SpaceX, and other businesses owned by Musk have accumulated “only” about $100 million in penalties but they are involved in numerous current regulatory controversies, including some related to their extensive contracts with the federal government.

It is also worth noting that all these companies have been involved in regulatory offenses outside the United States and may be hoping that the Trump Administration can pressure the European Union, for instance to ease up on the oversight.

As shown in Violation Tracker Global, Apple has paid out more than $18 billion in penalties to foreign countries since 2010, including a case last year in which it was ordered by the European Commission to repay 13 billion euros to Ireland to make up for illegal tax breaks. Earlier last year, the Commission fined Apple 1.8 billion euros for abusing its dominant position in the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users through its App Store.

Alphabet has paid out 7 billion euros to the Commission for anti-competitive practices and 965 million euros to French authorities for improper shifting of profits to evade taxes. Meta has paid over 2 billion euros in a series of cases brought by the Irish Data Protection Commission for privacy violations. Amazon was fined 746 million euros by the data protection agency in Luxembourg.

In short, the companies given a place of honor at Trump’s inauguration are serial regulatory violators that have apparently decided that cozying up to the new Administration may pay off at home and abroad.

The Two Faces of Pam Bondi

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Pam Bondi’s nomination to be Attorney General was filled with talk of weaponization of the Justice Department. Republicans put that label on everything they dislike about the DOJ’s behavior during the Biden Administration, while Democrats used it to warn about what will happen if Donald Trump carries through with his vow to get the Department to exact revenge on his perceived enemies.

Nothing was said about the ways in which the DOJ has been substantially disarmed over the past eight years and will probably be further weakened in the next four. That is with regard to the prosecution of corporations, which are increasingly being treated with leniency rather than the iron fist commonly proposed for other types of offenders.

Bondi spoke repeatedly during the hearing about her intention to crack down on drug dealers, terrorists, human traffickers, and immigration violators. There were some oblique references to business malfeasance. She responded positively to comments on the False Claim Act offered by Sen. Grassley, who reminded us of his leading role in the 1986 updating of the Civil War-era law to enhance the role of whistleblowers. It was unclear, however, whether Bondi was signaling her interest in cases against major federal contractors or just ones targeting smaller fish such as individual healthcare providers.

Bondi also agreed with comments by Sen. Klobuchar about the importance of antitrust. Here it was unclear whether this indicated support for aggressive action against corporate concentration of all kinds or just cases against the Big Tech companies the Right likes to vilify. Bondi was evasive when asked about upholding legislation requiring Big Pharma to negotiate with the federal government on prescription drug prices.

While she sparred on several issues with Adam Schiff, the new Senator from California, she seemed to agree with him on the importance of preventing price-gouging in the wake of the disastrous fires in Los Angeles. Schiff, however, had referred to abusive practices by oil companies, while Bondi seemed to focus on gouging by local businesses.

The ambiguities in Bondi’s comments can also be found in her record as Attorney General of Florida from 2011 to 2018. On the one hand, Bondi’s tenure was tainted by accusations that she backed away from investigating misconduct by the for-profit Trump University because of a $25,000 contribution to a political action committee supporting her re-election campaign by a Trump family foundation.

Bondi initiated relatively few cases against large corporations, yet she was heavily involved in multistate rightwing legal initiatives to undermine the Affordable Care Act, to undo a ban on some semi-automatic weapons enacted by Connecticut in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, and to block a plan by the EPA and six states to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay by restricting pollution runoff by factory farms.

On the other hand, Bondi participated in numerous more enlightened multistate attorneys general lawsuits. These included major cases against BP for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, against big banks for mortgage abuses during 2000s, against Wells Fargo related to the bogus accounts scandal, and against General Motors for selling vehicles with defective ignition switches.

There seem to be two sides to Pam Bondi. She was a rightwing partisan during and after her time as Florida AG and she may have allowed those beliefs to stand in the way of prosecuting allies such as Donald Trump. Yet she also was reasonably serious about carrying out the responsibilities of an AG to serve as a consumer champion and was willing to confront at least some powerful corporate interests.

If, as seems likely, Bondi is confirmed, she will serve in an administration headed by a man who has little regard for norms such as the independence of the DOJ and will probably be inclined to discourage investigations of companies which support him and encourage prosecutions of those he dislikes.

Which Pam Bondi will occupy the AG’s office: the partisan loyalist who carries out Trump’s illegitimate wishes or the upright law enforcement officer?

Will the Biden DOJ End With a Whimper?

Unless something dramatic happens in the next week or so, it appears that the Biden Justice Department’s prosecution of corporate misconduct will come to an end not with a bang but with a whimper.

This is in stark contrast to what happened the last time the DOJ prepared to turn over the reins to a Trump Administration expected to be less than relentless in going after corporate miscreants. In the period between the 2016 election and Trump’s inauguration, the Obama DOJ resolved a flurry of high-profile cases in which major corporations paid more than $30 billion in fines and settlements.

These included four ten-figure settlements: Deutsche Bank’s $7.2 billion toxic securities case; Credit Suisse’s $5.3 billion case in the same category; Volkswagen’s $4.3 billion case relating to emissions fraud; and Takata’s $1 billion case relating to defective airbag inflators. There were also nine-figure cases involving corporations such as Moody’s, Western Union, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Rolls-Royce.

The Biden DOJ has bagged one significant trophy recently: in December it got the consulting firm McKinsey to agree to pay $650 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations relating to its role in assisting the disgraced company Purdue Pharma in the improper marketing of Oxycontin, which fueled the opioid epidemic. As is common in major cases of this kind, McKinsey was allowed to avoid the full impact of the criminal charges by being offered a deferred prosecution agreement.

Another major consulting company, Booz Allen, recently settled a False Claims Act case involving a contract with the Defense Department, but the penalty amount was only $15.9 million. Otherwise, the resolutions announced since the election have been run-of-the-mill cases brought against lower-profile companies.

I should point out that the Biden DOJ did achieve a couple of major wins in the period leading up to the election. In October, TD Bank paid $1.9 billion and pled guilty to charges relating to anti-money-laundering deficiencies and Raytheon paid $950 million to resolve allegations of contracting abuses and foreign bribery.

My focus here, however, is what the DOJ decides what to do once it has attained lame duck status. Faced with the prospect of turning over their cases to an overly corporate-friendly administration, prosecutors should do their best to achieve strong settlements.

In theory, career prosecutors should be able to pursue cases aggressively, regardless of the ideological orientation of the administration. Yet DOJ leadership can set policies that control how those prosecutors operate.

What complicates the current situation is that even before the election results became known, the Biden DOJ was not, apart from a few cases such as those cited above, taking a particularly aggressive posture toward corporate crime. The department put undue emphasis on offering leniency deals to encourage companies to self-report misconduct. This approach falls apart when the misconduct is not the work of a rogue employee but is instead inherent in the company’s operations and even encouraged by those at the top.

It remains unclear whether the Trump DOJ will continue on the leniency path and perhaps even offer sweetheart deals to companies that have curried favor with MAGA World–the way Meta Platforms has just done by announcing it will end its fact-checking program.

Trump’s choice to run the DOJ, Pam Bondi, does not have a strong track record in prosecuting corporate misconduct. In the eight years she was attorney general of Florida, there were only a handful of successful cases brought against large companies. She spent a lot more time as a leader of the effort by Republican AGs to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

As a fierce MAGA loyalist, she is likely to focus more on prosecuting Trump’s perceived enemies and less on rogue corporations.

Note: A new resource from Public Citizen called the Corporate Enforcement Tracker documents more than 200 pending cases and reported investigations against corporations. Since most, if not all, of these cases are unlikely to be resolved in the next ten days, their fate will be determined by the Trump DOJ.

The 2024 Corporate Rap Sheet

My colleagues and I collected more than 22,000 new entries for the U.S. version of Violation Tracker this year. We also launched Violation Tracker Global, which contains cases brought against large corporations in 52 countries. Here are some of the most notable cases of the year from both databases.

McKinsey and Opioids. McKinsey, the leading management consulting firm, had to pay $650 million in criminal and civil penalties to resolve a U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) case concerning its work for the disgraced pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. McKinsey was charged with conspiring with Purdue to “turbocharge” sales of OxyContin while misleading users about the addiction risks of the opioid.

TD Bank and Money Laundering. TD Bank N.A., a U.S. subsidiary of Canada’s Toronto-Dominion, pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $1.9 billion in fines and forfeiture to resolve DOJ charges that it violated the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to file reports on suspicious transactions and thereby facilitated money laundering by criminal networks.

BHP, Vale and a Mining Disaster. Mining giants BHP and Vale, co-owners of the Samarco joint venture, agreed to a US$31 billion settlement to resolve litigation brought by Brazilian communities destroyed by the 2015 Mariana mine-waste dam collapse that killed 19 people and polluted 400 miles of rivers.

Raytheon and Fraud and Bribery. Raytheon Company, a subsidiary of military contractor RTX (formerly known as Raytheon Technologies), agreed to pay over $950 million to resolve a DOJ criminal investigation into a major fraud scheme involving defective pricing on certain government contracts and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Arms Export Control Act.

3M and PFAS. A federal judge in South Carolina gave final approval to a class action settlement in which 3M agreed to pay an estimated $12.5 billion to more than 10,000 public water systems to resolve allegations that PFAS chemicals produced by the company for use in firefighting foam ended up contaminating water sources.

Apple and Improper Tax Breaks. The European Commission ordered Apple to repay 13 billion euros to Ireland after determining that the special tax breaks the company had been receiving for 16 years amounted to a form of illegitimate state aid.

Meta Platforms and Biometric Data. Facebook parent Meta Platforms agreed to pay $1.4 billion to the Texas Attorney General’s office to settle a lawsuit alleging it improperly captured biometric data from millions of users for its facial recognition system without the authorization required by state law.

Teva Pharmaceuticals and Copaxone. The European Commission fined Teva 462 million euros for abusing its dominant position to delay competition to Copaxone, its medication for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The Commission found that Teva artificially extended the patent protection of Copaxone and systematically spread misleading information about a competing product to hinder its market entry and uptake.

Uber Technologies and Wage Theft. Uber paid  $148 million to settle a case brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General alleging that it violated state wage and hour law in the way it paid its drivers. The agreement also required the company to begin paying a minimum wage of $32.50 an hour and providing benefits such as paid sick leave. The case also targeted Lyft, which paid $27 million.

Glencore and Bribery. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland ordered commodities trading company Glencore to pay a penalty equal to about $152 million for failing to take steps to prevent the bribery of government officials in the Democratic Republic of Congo by a business partner.

Walgreens and False Claims. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. and Walgreen Co. agreed to pay $106 million to the DOJ to resolve alleged violations of the False Claims Act and state statutes for billing government health care programs for prescriptions never dispensed.

Veolia and a Workplace Death. A British subsidiary of France’s Veolia Group pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act after a worker died and another was seriously injured while decommissioning a North Sea gas rig. The Health and Safety Executive fined the company £3 million and ordered it to pay £60,000 in costs.

Goldman Sachs and Apple Card Users. The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Goldman Sachs to pay $64 million in fines and redress for mishandling customer service breakdowns affecting thousands of Apple Card holders. These failures meant that consumers faced long waits to get money back for disputed charges and some had incorrect negative information added to their credit reports.

You can find many more examples of the year’s corporate scandals in Violation Tracker and Violation Tracker Global. There is every reason to believe there will be many more cases for the Trackers to document in the coming year.

Trump Recruits Regulatory Rulebreakers

The new Trump Administration will not be the first to staff many of its top positions from the private sector; Trump himself filled his first cabinet with various corporate types. This time around, however, these business figures are coming aboard amid an atmosphere in which norms and rules regarding conflicts of interest and ethics are falling by the wayside.

This starts, of course, at the top. Trump has signaled that he will do even less than in 2017 to separate himself from his family’s ventures. Now, as ProPublica points out, he will also be the first president to take office as the majority owner of a publicly traded company, Trump Media & Technology Group.

In its most recent 10-Q quarterly filing, issued on election day, Trump Media listed as one of the risk factors for its investors the fact that Trump was the subject of numerous legal proceedings. By getting himself elected, Trump has in effect removed many of these risks, given the Justice Department prohibition against prosecuting a sitting president.

The question now is what steps he may take once in office to protect the company itself from oversight. Trump’s choice of Paul Atkins, described as a “regulatory skeptic,” to head the Securities and Exchange Commission will be a boon both to Trump Media and all publicly traded companies.

Trump’s picks for his cabinet and other top positions include numerous figures from the private sector who are currently affiliated with corporations that stand to benefit from a weakening of regulatory protections in various areas. These include companies with a history of misconduct. Here are some examples, drawing on data from Violation Tracker.

Howard Lutnick: Secretary of Commerce. Lutnick is the chief executive of the investment banking and brokerage firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which has racked up more than $50 million in penalties. This includes a $10 million fine paid to the SEC in 2022 for failing to comply with recordkeeping requirements.

Chris Wright: Secretary of Energy. Wright, an executive at Liberty Energy, which does business as Liberty Oilfield Services, is an outspoken defender of fracking and an ardent climate denier. Earlier this year, the company paid $265,000 to settle allegations from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Black and Latino workers at its operations in Odessa, Texas were subjected to a hostile environment, including racial slurs. According to the EEOC, management took no correction action when informed of the problem. Liberty has also been cited numerous times by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, including a 2021 case in which it was fined $55,000 for serious and repeated infringements.

Stephen Feinberg: Deputy Defense Secretary. Feinberg is the co-chief executive of the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. The portfolio firms controlled by Cerberus include Hospitality Staffing Solutions, which was fined $58,000 by the Labor Department for wage and hour violations, and Cyanco, which was fined $52,000 by the EPA. Cerberus used to own military contractor DynCorp, which has been involved in numerous controversies, including a case in which it paid $7.7 million to settle allegations of submitting false claims to the Department of State.

Frank Bisignano: Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Bisignano is the chief executive of the payments company Fiserv. In 2020 Fiserv subsidiary First Data paid $40.2 million to the Federal Trade Commission to resolve allegations it knowingly processed payments and laundered credit card transactions for scams that targeted hundreds of thousands of consumers.

Additional examples come from the make-believe agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency, whose main cheerleader, Elon Musk, heads companies such as Tesla that have clashed with regulators and paid fines.

Not all of Trump’s picks are migrants from the corporate sector. There are also Fox News hosts, rightwing public officials and MAGA ideologues. There is even the wild card RFK Jr., who is critical of the food and drug industries.

Yet the new Trump government will have plenty of people who have come through the reverse revolving door and are likely to promote policies that benefit their former employers and Corporate America in general. The fact that many of them will be veterans of companies with a history of misconduct should make them enthusiastic supporters of Trump’s assault on regulatory safeguards.

If there is an opposite to economic populism, this is it.

The DOGE Blind Spot

Donald Trump and Elon Musk, both masters at making grandiose statements that usually have little substance, are at it again in the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency. The two, along with provocateur Vivek Ramaswamy, are dressing up the prosaic act of creating an advisory committee into something that will supposedly transform the federal government.

In a manifesto published in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy vowed that DOGE will “cut the federal government down to size.” Saying the entity will work closely with the Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget, they plan to “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.”

At this point it is difficult to assess whether Musk and Ramaswamy, who seem to be largely ignorant of federal regulatory and budgetary processes, can make any of this happen. Yet what strikes me as most significant is the issue missing from their stated agenda: federal procurement.

The DOGE principals have been taking repeated potshots at federal agencies and civil servants but have been largely silent about the other major player when it comes to public spending: the companies that are paid some $759 billion each year to provide goods and services.

Musk and Ramaswamy make passing reference to procurement in their manifesto, suggesting the issue is poor agency management of the process. Yet the real problem is contractor fraud.

A Government Accountability Office report published in April estimated total direct financial losses to the federal government from fraud at $233 billion to $521 billion per year. While some of this comes from corrupt activities of individuals or criminal enterprises, a substantial portion can be attributed to mainstream corporations, including many household names.

When such companies are found to be cheating, they are usually charged under the False Claims Act, an 1863 law that had its origins in the prosecution of unscrupulous suppliers to the Union Army during the Civil War. Today, the FCA is used to get misbehaving firms to pay a monetary penalty without facing the risk of criminal prosecution.

In Violation Tracker we document nearly 4,000 federal and related state FCA cases over the past 25 years, with total penalties of $58 billion. Healthcare companies such as Tenet, HCA, and Centene have penalty totals in excess of $1 billion. Pentagon contractors Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin have each paid out hundreds of millions. Also high on the list are pharmaceutical producers such as Pfizer and Merck as well as information technology firms such as Oracle and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

These penalties do not arise from isolated examples. Many of the big firms are penalized over and over for contracting offenses. Lockheed Martin, for example, has paid FCA penalties in 16 different cases. Large companies are almost never debarred from continuing as federal contractors.

Pentagon contractors seem to have little to worry about from DOGE or the Trump Administration. The president-elect reportedly plans to nominate Stephen Feinberg to the job of deputy defense secretary. Feinberg is the co-chief executive of Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm with a history of investing in weapons producers.

It is not surprising that DOGE is choosing to target federal employees rather than contractors. After all, Musk is the head of companies that do a great deal of business with Uncle Sam. SolarCity Corporation, acquired by Musk and now part of Tesla Energy, had previously paid $29 million in an FCA case.

Contractors in general are poised to thrive under Trump 2.0. In fact, one might view DOGE not as an effort to shrink government but rather as a way of generating more work for contractors. If the headcount of some agencies is reduced, those functions may not disappear but instead could be outsourced to the private sector.

That would be a boon to service contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton, which last year paid $377 million to settle an FCA case involving improper billing, and Conduent, which in 2022 paid $7.9 million to settle an FCA case involving the submission of false claims to the Department of Education.

By paving the way for more federal contracting and thus more contractor fraud, DOGE may end up increasing rather than reducing government waste and abuse.