SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao still owns shares in a consturction company that provides materials to pave roads. (Photo: James F. X. O'Gara/Hudson Institute/Flickr/cc)
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao came under fire from ethics experts and reporters after The Wall Street Journalrevealed Tuesday that she still owns shares in a major construction company that provides materials for road-paving despite pledging to divest from the company in the ethics agreement she signed before her confirmation in early 2017.
"Elaine Chao just threw her hat into the ring for the Trump admin's worst self-enriching action."
-- Public Citizen
"The road to tyranny is paved with corrupt intentions: Elaine Chao just threw her hat into the ring for the Trump admin's worst self-enriching action--retaining shares in a construction-materials company more than a year after she promised to relinquish them," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen tweeted in response to the report.
Shares of Vulcan Materials Co. "have risen nearly 13 percent since April 2018, the month in which Ms. Chao said she would be cashed out of the stock, netting her a more than $40,000 gain," the Journal noted. "The shares, now worth nearly $400,000, were paid out to Ms. Chao in April 2018, as deferred compensation for the roughly two years she served on Vulcan's board of directors before being confirmed as secretary of transportation."
\u201cWhy this matters? @apmreports tracked Vulcan\u2019s stock in 2017. It spiked whenever Chao or @realDonaldTrump talked infrastructure $. https://t.co/26UMBOyVm0 Cc: @TMannWSJ\u201d— Tom Scheck (@Tom Scheck) 1559045433
A Department of Transportation spokesperson told the Journal that the 2017 ethics agreement failed to account for Vulcan's compensation policy and the agreement's language "is being clarified to avoid confusion." The spokesperson also said DOT's top ethics official determined that Chao owning the shares does not present a conflict of interest, but the secretary will continue to recuse herself from decisions involving the company--another pledge she made in the agreement.
Walter Shaub, who resigned as director of the Office of Government Ethics in mid-2017 over clashes with the Trump administration, agreed that Chao's ownership of Vulcan shares likely is not a legal conflict of interest but criticized her decision to retain the shares.
"If you look at her ethics agreement, it provides for a complete disentanglement of her interest from Vulcan Materials, and that's what was represented to the Senate," Shaub told the Journal. "For the head of the DOT to have a financial interest in an asphalt company, that is not sending a message to employees of DOT that she is making ethics a priority."
Shaub, who is now a senior adviser at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), added in a series of tweets that "the ethics agreement is supposed to be binding. Changing it post-confirmation is a bait-and-switch on the Senate."
The Senate confirmed Chao in a 93-6 vote in January of 2017. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Chao's husband, abstained.
\u201cYou mean another Trump appointee, who also happens to be the wife of Mitch McConnell, is corrupt? Shocking.\u201d— Wajahat Ali (@Wajahat Ali) 1559056782
The Journal pointed out that "Ms. Chao's decision to retain the shares and recuse herself from matters that might affect Vulcan stands in contrast to the way previous transportation secretaries have handled potential conflicts of interest."
For instance, former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who served under President Barack Obama, sold stakes in Caterpillar Inc. and Ford Motor Co. upon being confirmed to lead the department.
"I basically sold everything," Mr. LaHood said. "The ethics police told me to do it, so I did it."
The newspaper reported that other government officials--including Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald Batory as well as Jeffrey Rosen, who served as Chao's top deputy before becoming deputy attorney general--have divested from companies that posed potential conflicts.
However, as Carrie Levine, a money in politics reporter at the Center for Public Integrity, acknowledged on Twitter Tuesday, "this resembles ethics issues of two other cabinet members"--Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
\u201cAnd ethics officials agreed to revise Treasury Secretary Mnuchin\u2019s ethics agreement after he sold a company to his wife that he had previously agreed to completely divest. https://t.co/CS72k16or4\u201d— Carrie Levine (@Carrie Levine) 1559040363
"It is pretty unusual," Levine concluded, "to have three cabinet secretaries who either haven't complied with their original ethics agreements or have belatedly gotten revisions."
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao came under fire from ethics experts and reporters after The Wall Street Journalrevealed Tuesday that she still owns shares in a major construction company that provides materials for road-paving despite pledging to divest from the company in the ethics agreement she signed before her confirmation in early 2017.
"Elaine Chao just threw her hat into the ring for the Trump admin's worst self-enriching action."
-- Public Citizen
"The road to tyranny is paved with corrupt intentions: Elaine Chao just threw her hat into the ring for the Trump admin's worst self-enriching action--retaining shares in a construction-materials company more than a year after she promised to relinquish them," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen tweeted in response to the report.
Shares of Vulcan Materials Co. "have risen nearly 13 percent since April 2018, the month in which Ms. Chao said she would be cashed out of the stock, netting her a more than $40,000 gain," the Journal noted. "The shares, now worth nearly $400,000, were paid out to Ms. Chao in April 2018, as deferred compensation for the roughly two years she served on Vulcan's board of directors before being confirmed as secretary of transportation."
\u201cWhy this matters? @apmreports tracked Vulcan\u2019s stock in 2017. It spiked whenever Chao or @realDonaldTrump talked infrastructure $. https://t.co/26UMBOyVm0 Cc: @TMannWSJ\u201d— Tom Scheck (@Tom Scheck) 1559045433
A Department of Transportation spokesperson told the Journal that the 2017 ethics agreement failed to account for Vulcan's compensation policy and the agreement's language "is being clarified to avoid confusion." The spokesperson also said DOT's top ethics official determined that Chao owning the shares does not present a conflict of interest, but the secretary will continue to recuse herself from decisions involving the company--another pledge she made in the agreement.
Walter Shaub, who resigned as director of the Office of Government Ethics in mid-2017 over clashes with the Trump administration, agreed that Chao's ownership of Vulcan shares likely is not a legal conflict of interest but criticized her decision to retain the shares.
"If you look at her ethics agreement, it provides for a complete disentanglement of her interest from Vulcan Materials, and that's what was represented to the Senate," Shaub told the Journal. "For the head of the DOT to have a financial interest in an asphalt company, that is not sending a message to employees of DOT that she is making ethics a priority."
Shaub, who is now a senior adviser at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), added in a series of tweets that "the ethics agreement is supposed to be binding. Changing it post-confirmation is a bait-and-switch on the Senate."
The Senate confirmed Chao in a 93-6 vote in January of 2017. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Chao's husband, abstained.
\u201cYou mean another Trump appointee, who also happens to be the wife of Mitch McConnell, is corrupt? Shocking.\u201d— Wajahat Ali (@Wajahat Ali) 1559056782
The Journal pointed out that "Ms. Chao's decision to retain the shares and recuse herself from matters that might affect Vulcan stands in contrast to the way previous transportation secretaries have handled potential conflicts of interest."
For instance, former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who served under President Barack Obama, sold stakes in Caterpillar Inc. and Ford Motor Co. upon being confirmed to lead the department.
"I basically sold everything," Mr. LaHood said. "The ethics police told me to do it, so I did it."
The newspaper reported that other government officials--including Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald Batory as well as Jeffrey Rosen, who served as Chao's top deputy before becoming deputy attorney general--have divested from companies that posed potential conflicts.
However, as Carrie Levine, a money in politics reporter at the Center for Public Integrity, acknowledged on Twitter Tuesday, "this resembles ethics issues of two other cabinet members"--Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
\u201cAnd ethics officials agreed to revise Treasury Secretary Mnuchin\u2019s ethics agreement after he sold a company to his wife that he had previously agreed to completely divest. https://t.co/CS72k16or4\u201d— Carrie Levine (@Carrie Levine) 1559040363
"It is pretty unusual," Levine concluded, "to have three cabinet secretaries who either haven't complied with their original ethics agreements or have belatedly gotten revisions."
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao came under fire from ethics experts and reporters after The Wall Street Journalrevealed Tuesday that she still owns shares in a major construction company that provides materials for road-paving despite pledging to divest from the company in the ethics agreement she signed before her confirmation in early 2017.
"Elaine Chao just threw her hat into the ring for the Trump admin's worst self-enriching action."
-- Public Citizen
"The road to tyranny is paved with corrupt intentions: Elaine Chao just threw her hat into the ring for the Trump admin's worst self-enriching action--retaining shares in a construction-materials company more than a year after she promised to relinquish them," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen tweeted in response to the report.
Shares of Vulcan Materials Co. "have risen nearly 13 percent since April 2018, the month in which Ms. Chao said she would be cashed out of the stock, netting her a more than $40,000 gain," the Journal noted. "The shares, now worth nearly $400,000, were paid out to Ms. Chao in April 2018, as deferred compensation for the roughly two years she served on Vulcan's board of directors before being confirmed as secretary of transportation."
\u201cWhy this matters? @apmreports tracked Vulcan\u2019s stock in 2017. It spiked whenever Chao or @realDonaldTrump talked infrastructure $. https://t.co/26UMBOyVm0 Cc: @TMannWSJ\u201d— Tom Scheck (@Tom Scheck) 1559045433
A Department of Transportation spokesperson told the Journal that the 2017 ethics agreement failed to account for Vulcan's compensation policy and the agreement's language "is being clarified to avoid confusion." The spokesperson also said DOT's top ethics official determined that Chao owning the shares does not present a conflict of interest, but the secretary will continue to recuse herself from decisions involving the company--another pledge she made in the agreement.
Walter Shaub, who resigned as director of the Office of Government Ethics in mid-2017 over clashes with the Trump administration, agreed that Chao's ownership of Vulcan shares likely is not a legal conflict of interest but criticized her decision to retain the shares.
"If you look at her ethics agreement, it provides for a complete disentanglement of her interest from Vulcan Materials, and that's what was represented to the Senate," Shaub told the Journal. "For the head of the DOT to have a financial interest in an asphalt company, that is not sending a message to employees of DOT that she is making ethics a priority."
Shaub, who is now a senior adviser at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), added in a series of tweets that "the ethics agreement is supposed to be binding. Changing it post-confirmation is a bait-and-switch on the Senate."
The Senate confirmed Chao in a 93-6 vote in January of 2017. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Chao's husband, abstained.
\u201cYou mean another Trump appointee, who also happens to be the wife of Mitch McConnell, is corrupt? Shocking.\u201d— Wajahat Ali (@Wajahat Ali) 1559056782
The Journal pointed out that "Ms. Chao's decision to retain the shares and recuse herself from matters that might affect Vulcan stands in contrast to the way previous transportation secretaries have handled potential conflicts of interest."
For instance, former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who served under President Barack Obama, sold stakes in Caterpillar Inc. and Ford Motor Co. upon being confirmed to lead the department.
"I basically sold everything," Mr. LaHood said. "The ethics police told me to do it, so I did it."
The newspaper reported that other government officials--including Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald Batory as well as Jeffrey Rosen, who served as Chao's top deputy before becoming deputy attorney general--have divested from companies that posed potential conflicts.
However, as Carrie Levine, a money in politics reporter at the Center for Public Integrity, acknowledged on Twitter Tuesday, "this resembles ethics issues of two other cabinet members"--Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
\u201cAnd ethics officials agreed to revise Treasury Secretary Mnuchin\u2019s ethics agreement after he sold a company to his wife that he had previously agreed to completely divest. https://t.co/CS72k16or4\u201d— Carrie Levine (@Carrie Levine) 1559040363
"It is pretty unusual," Levine concluded, "to have three cabinet secretaries who either haven't complied with their original ethics agreements or have belatedly gotten revisions."
"The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight," said one state Democrat.
Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.
Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.
"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.
"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.
Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observer reported Friday.
As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.
Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.
Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
Reminder: From my legal and partisan sources, this ultimately gets decided based on how fed courts address military and overseas voters who didn't provide photo ID (and were expressly advised before election that they didn't need to). Why it matters: andersonalerts.substack.com/p/nc-supreme...
[image or embed]
— Bryan Anderson (@bryanranderson.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM
North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."
"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."
Phillips continued:
Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution.
If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.
"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."
"How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are," said one lawyer.
A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the return of a Maryland resident who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, according to The Associated Press.
Prior to issuing the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia "an illegal act."
The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, gave the Trump administration end of the day of the day on Monday to bring him back to the United States.
Supporters outside the courtroom cheered as the judge handed down her order, according to The Washington Post.
Responding to the ruling on social media, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a big win. Now Trump must comply with the judge's order."
Immigration lawyer Ava Benach wrote: "The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are."
The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are.
[image or embed]
— avabenach.bsky.social (@avabenach.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of people the administration expelled in mid-March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador after targeting them for alleged gang ties.
In a court papers filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting field office director admitted that the removal of Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was an error."
Abrego Garcia was deported despite the fact that in 2019, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to his native El Salvador because he would likely face gang persecution there.
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed."
The latest U.S. agency in the crosshairs of billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is reportedly the Federal Trade Commission, an already-understaffed department tasked with preventing monopolistic practices and shielding consumers from corporate abuses.
Axios reported Friday that at least two DOGE staffers "now have offices at" the FTC. According to The Verge, two DOGE members "were spotted" at the agency's building this week and "are now listed in the FTC's internal directory."
The Verge noted that the FTC is "a fairly lean agency with fewer than 1,200 employees," a number that the Trump administration has already cut into with the firing of some of the department's consumer protection and antitrust staff.
At least two of Musk's companies, Tesla and X, have faced scrutiny in recent years from the FTC, which is now under the leadership of Trump appointee Andrew Ferguson, who previously pledged to roll back former chair Lina Khan's anti-monopoly legacy.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, which referred to the operatives as Musk's "minions," said Friday that "DOGE is yet again raiding a federal watchdog tasked with protecting working Americans from Wall Street and Big Tech."
"The FTC has worked to stop monopolistic mergers that would have led to higher grocery prices and is now gearing up to go to court against Meta's social media monopoly," said Peterson-Cassin. "It's no surprise that at this moment, while the economy is in freefall and fraud is on the rise, DOGE is choosing to raid the federal watchdog that protects everyday Americans and threatens corporate monopolies and grifters."
News of DOGE staffers' infiltration of the FTC came as Trump's sweeping new tariffs continued to cause global economic turmoil and heightened concerns that companies in the U.S. will use the tariffs as a new excuse to jack up prices and pad their bottom lines.
Ferguson pledged in a social media post Thursday that under his leadership, the FTC "will be watching closely" to ensure companies don't view Trump's tariffs "as a green light for price fixing or any other unlawful behavior."
But Trump has hobbled the agency—and prompted yet another legal fight—by firing its two Democratic commissioners, a move that sparked fury and has already impacted the FTC's ability to pursue cases against large corporations.
Peterson-Cassin said Friday that "the only winners" of DOGE's targeting of the FTC "are Trump's billionaire besties like [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg and especially Musk, who now stands to gain access to confidential financial information about every company ever investigated by the FTC, including the auto manufacturers, aerospace firms, internet providers, tech companies, and banks that directly compete with his own companies."
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed," Peterson-Cassin added.