Featured

Trump: Iran asked me to be Supreme Leader, but I said no thanks

Trump’s “Iran asked me to be Supreme Leader” joke at an NRCC fundraiser uses a real, deadly leadership crisis in Iran to normalize assassination-as-policy and blur what’s confirmed about the war and succession.

Mar 26, 2026

Featured

‘Men need to be perp-walked’ after Epstein files release, Massie tells BBC

A GOP lawmaker says the Epstein document releases are still falling short—because redactions and withheld material may be blocking accountability and survivor-centered justice.

Mar 25, 2026

Buried.News

The stories buried under the noise

Primary focus

Trump fires Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

A Cabinet secretary was forced out amid contracting and oversight scrutiny, signaling that executive control—not transparent accountability—can dictate leadership of the agency driving mass detention and deportation.

Mar 5, 2026

Featured

The Trump gold coin is not normal : Consider This from NPR

A federal design panel OK’d a Trump portrait for a commemorative gold coin, but the key question is whether Treasury can legally bypass long-standing limits meant to keep living politicians off U.S. money.

Mar 23, 2026

Featured

White House Confronted Over Huge Bets Made Minutes Before Trump’s Big War Move

A $580 million burst of oil-futures selling minutes before Trump’s Iran “talks” post raises a basic public-interest question: did anyone trade on advance knowledge of a market-moving national security decision?

Mar 24, 2026

Norms Impact

Trump Signs New Order to Vastly Expand Presidential Powers

Trump’s new order pulls independent regulators under White House budget and performance control, shattering the long-standing firewall meant to keep elections, markets, and communications oversight from partisan command.

Executive

Feb 19, 2025

⚖ Legal Exposure

Ethics Violation

Likely Unlawful

Potentially Criminal

Likely Criminal

The executive order’s attempt to subject historically independent agencies to White House/OMB “supervision and control,” including budget amendments to advance presidential priorities, creates significant legal exposure as an irregular and potentially unlawful restructuring likely to trigger APA and statutory challenges. However, the article provides no facts indicating bribery, personal enrichment, or a money-to-official-action quid pro quo; the current exposure is best characterized as a serious investigative and litigation red flag rather than clearly prosecutable corruption.

Sources

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-signs-new-order-to-vastly-expand-his-presidential-powers/

Summary

President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing presidential supervision and control over independent regulatory agencies, including the FEC, FCC, FTC, and SEC, through the White House. The order shifts oversight to the Office of Management and Budget by empowering Director Russell Vought to set performance standards, report to the president, and amend agency budgets to advance presidential priorities. It centralizes leverage over regulators historically insulated from direct political control, setting up immediate legal conflict and altering how federal rules and enforcement can be steered from the Oval Office.

Reality Check

Centralizing control over independent regulators through White House-directed performance metrics and budget pressure is a blueprint for politicized enforcement, weakening our protections in elections, markets, and consumer finance by making oversight answer upward to one person. On the provided facts, the core conduct is not plainly criminal on its face, but it aggressively strains bedrock anti-abuse norms by converting “independent” agencies into instruments of presidential policy through OMB leverage and managerial discipline. The legal flashpoint will be whether this violates statutory independence schemes and limits Congress built into agency design, not a clean fit for federal criminal statutes without additional facts showing bribery, extortion, or corrupt intent. When a president pairs this kind of consolidation with rhetoric like “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” we are being conditioned to accept executive power as self-justifying—an erosion that leaves ordinary rights dependent on political loyalty instead of neutral administration.

Legal Summary

Legal Analysis

5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (APA) — Agency action “not in accordance with law” / “in excess of statutory jurisdiction”

The executive order asserts “Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch” and targets traditionally independent agencies (FEC, FCC, FTC, SEC), creating substantial risk that resulting directives/budget interventions would exceed statutory schemes that insulate certain functions from direct White House control.
Assigning OMB Director Russell Vought to set “performance standards,” report on agency heads, and amend agency budgets to advance presidential priorities may be challenged as ultra vires if it effectively overrides congressionally mandated independence or decision-making processes.

2 U.S.C. § 437c (Federal Election Commission structure) / statutory independence constraints (general) — Interference risk

Because the order expressly reaches the FEC, it raises an investigative red flag for politicized control of election enforcement—an area Congress structured for bipartisan, commission-based independence.
Article context does not allege a specific enforcement action taken at Trump/Vought’s direction, leaving key “official act” and concrete interference elements fact-dependent and likely to be litigated rather than prosecuted.

18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to defraud the United States (impairing lawful governmental functions)

The described plan to use OMB oversight to reshape independent agencies’ policy execution could, if paired with deceptive means or covert pressure to impair lawful agency functions, implicate a § 371 “defraud” theory.
Here, the article describes an openly issued executive order and does not allege deception, concealment, or coordinated corrupt pressure tactics; additional facts would be required for criminal exposure.

18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 1346, 666 (bribery/honest services/program bribery) — Structural corruption screen

The article alleges a major expansion of control and a key subordinate (Vought) consolidating authority, but it does not allege any payment, personal enrichment, or third-party benefit exchanged for official action.
Absent money/access/benefit alignment, the facts read as a power-consolidation/legal-theory test rather than a transactional quid pro quo.

Conclusion: The conduct described presents a serious investigative red flag for politicization and ultra vires interference with congressionally designed independent agencies, but the article does not allege a transactional corruption structure or concrete criminal elements sufficient for a likely criminal classification on these facts alone.

Media

View media post

Detail

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order stating it is executive-branch policy to ensure “Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch,” including independent regulatory agencies that have traditionally operated with limited White House influence.

The order identifies agencies such as the Federal Election Committee, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission as affected. It directs the Office of Management and Budget, led by Director Russell Vought, to oversee agency heads by establishing “performance standards and management objectives” and reporting periodically to the president on performance and efficiency in meeting those standards.

The order also authorizes Vought to amend agency budgets “as necessary and appropriate to advance the President’s policies and priorities.” Separately, Vought is serving as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where he has laid off a large percentage of employees and halted funding. The order is expected to face swift legal challenges.

Norms Impact

‘So Much for Lowering Costs’: Fury Over Musk’s Death Wish for CFPB That Returned Over $20 Billion to Consumers | Common Dreams

A private billionaire’s “RIP” and a White House handover of an independent watchdog signals an attempted end-run around Congress’s consumer-protection mandate.

Executive

Feb 8, 2025

⚖ Legal Exposure

Ethics Violation

Likely Unlawful

Potentially Criminal

Likely Criminal

The article describes abrupt executive actions and system/website disruptions that, if accurate, may unlawfully impair CFPB’s statutorily required operations and public disclosures, creating significant litigation and investigative exposure. While there is no money-access-benefit quid pro quo alleged, the reported freeze of “all meaningful work,” leadership maneuvers, and potentially deceptive site behavior support Level 2 exposure pending further facts on statutory violations and intent.