Recently, as POTUS 47 claims to be rooting out corruption in government, he has demonstrated his love for even greater corruption in America and abroad. He has (1) instructed our government’s Department of Justice (which should not be his to “own”) to no longer enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices act, a post-Watergate effort by our Congress to penalize U.S. companies bribing foreign officials, and (2) has used the power of his office to extort public officials at home and abroad.
Here in the U.S., Trump continues his penchant for “deal-making,” which (in general) could be good for the U.S. at large, but has a peculiar quid pro quo quality that usually focuses on the greater good not for the U.S., but for Donald Trump. Trump’s handmaid at the DOJ, Emil Bove, appeared in federal court before Judge Dale Ho to ask for a dismissal of corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Adams was facing allegations of accepting over $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and bribes from Turkish officials during his tenure as Brooklyn borough president, and additional charges were expected to be filed by the U.S. attorneys in the Southern District of New York.
The DOJ cited concerns that the case interfered with his ability to assist Trump’s immigration policies and distracted from his mayoral duties ahead of the November election. As to the merits of the case against Adams, Emil Bove cited policy priorities rather than telling the judge that the case lacked merit. Notably, the government did not ask for a dismissal “with prejudice,” meaning that it could renew the prosecution later on.
Why? No rocket science is required: Trump wants Adams on a short leash so he can “yank his chain” if he does not do the U.S. government’s bidding on immigration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/nyregion/adams-lawyers-justice-department-dismissal.html
Bove had to come to New York to ask for the dismissal, because acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon (conservative attorney who once clerked for Antonin Scalia) resigned in protest. Her letter to the DOJ in DC is worth reading:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/us/doc-annotation-letter-to-bondi.html
According to Reuters,
”…after Sassoon refused to dismiss the case, the Trump administration directed John Keller, the acting head of the Justice Department’s public corruption unit, to do so. Keller also resigned on Thursday, two people familiar with the matter said. Kevin Driscoll, a senior official in the department’s criminal division, has also resigned, one of the people said. Three other deputies in the Justice Department’s public corruption unit – Rob Heberle, Jenn Clarke, and Marco Palmieri – also resigned on Thursday over the orders to dismiss the Adams case, a person familiar with the matter said.”
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) labeled the arrangement “outright extortion,” suggesting Adams traded policy compliance for leniency. While the DOJ might deny it (and does), Border Czar Tom Homan, appearing on a Fox News couch with Adams, gave away the game. He said, referring to Adams,
“If he doesn’t come through I’ll be back in New York City right and we won’t be sitting on the couch I’ll be in his office up his butt, saying where the hell is the agreement we came to.”
In brief, while the DOJ maintains the dismissal was procedural, critics argue the pattern of events—policy shifts, resignations, and Trump’s public support—suggests a transactional relationship that some liken to extortion. As several others have noted, the GOP administration wants Adams in a “choke collar.”
In another extraordinary “use all the leverage you can” move, Trump has essentially threatened to give away large swaths of illegally gained Ukrainian territory to Russia and Putin. . . unless Zelensky “pays back” all the money the U.S. has sent to Ukraine for its defense against Putin’s war of aggression.
Foreign Policy magazine called it “an extraordinary act of extortion.” And it is.
The “deal,” which Zelensky is in D.C. today to sign with Trump, does not give security guarantees to Ukraine, and purports to give the U.S. access to key strategic minerals in Ukraine, including rare earths.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/breaking-down-us-ukraine-minerals-deal
In brief, rather than support a democratic nation threatened by Putin’s war of aggression, Trump has abandoned all pretense of maintaining democratic values or the foundations of the post-World War II order that prized national self-determination and sovereignty. Trump’s main modus operandi remains the same as it has always been: “What can I get out of this?”
Meanwhile, the other side of the corruption coin of extortion is good old bribery. If you can’t use threats to get what you want, tit for tat, quid pro quo, use money! Trump has also instructed he DOJ to stop prosecuting U.S. companies that bribe foreign officials abroad. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act became law in the 1970s after it was clear that U.S. companies were bribing foreign officials to gain advantage in bids for lucrative contracts. The FCPA has been criticized from its inception for making U.S. companies less competitive globally. The thinking is that if another country’s corporations are able to gain an advantage on U.S. companies by bribing, U.S. companies will lose business.
But many thoughtful U.S. companies have said that on free market principles all companies should compete on the basis of price and quality not the ability to bribe. Think about this: if the wealthiest global companies can continually gain advantage by bribing, free market competition is at an end and the monopoly powers of the biggest corporate bribers are only strengthened. If global corporate champions are made by paying the biggest bribes, then free market competition based on price and quality are at an end.
As the UK’s The Guardian puts it:
“US companies – as well as US workers and citizens of affected countries – are not going to “win” by out-bribing the competition. American firms are better able to compete when playing on familiar grounds that include markets with transparent governance, the rule of law, independent and fair judicial systems and merit-based decision-making mechanisms. Rigged systems are more likely rigged against the interests of US and other rule-of-law countries.”
But Trump is not a true capitalist and is no great fan of the rule of law (or merit-based decisions on Cabinet members!); he is more of a mob boss and political opportunist, and his quid pro quos are both negative and positive: bribing for business with secret payments is OK with him, but there’s a different kind of quid pro quo –– threatening jail time or withholding political or economic support ––for those who can’t be bribed with money.
Because what he does are now “official acts” (according to the Supreme Court), they are effectively legal, even as he embraces corrupt quid pro quo bribery and extortion, he rails against perceived corruption in the U.S. government. Listen to him for just one minute here talking about “weeding out” the “tremendous fraud and corruption and waste” by “radical left lunatics.”
And so, the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. But, not to worry –– it’s all “perfectly legal.”