America Is Ending, At Least For Now, The Fight Against Corruption
When I visited Moscow in the summer of 2016, I encountered the Moscow Times, a local independent weekly newspaper. It was freely distributed in places where tourists and English-speakers would be expected to hang out and I read both editions that came out while I was there. The following year it became an on-line-only publication. After the invasion of Ukraine (2022), when the Kremlin cracked down on reporting divergent from the state line— the way Trump is starting to do here now— the paper moved to Amsterdam. It’s blocked in Russia now but you can read the worthwhile website.
On Friday, they offered some advice by Casey Michel, director of the Human Rights Foundation’s Combating Kleptocracy Program, for how democracies should deal with Trump’s decision to cease Washington’s war against kleptocracy.
Michel made sure his international audience is aware that “On Feb. 6, new U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a series of new directives from Trump’s administration outlining her office’s priorities. Taken together, they represent not just a shocking move away from Washington’s previous efforts to target kleptocrats and oligarchs, but represent the single-worst day ever seen in the history of U.S. anti-corruption efforts, standing to benefit every oligarch and kleptocrat around the world, especially in places like Russia. The directives effectively gut some of the U.S.’s most effective counter-kleptocracy tools and resources. They open the door to the kinds of crooked oligarchic networks that previous administrations had made headway against. Moreover, they make sanctions enforcement, especially against Russians, far more difficult.”
We’ll get back to Michel is a moment. It’s important to understand that, even more than other presidents, Trump sees his Attorney General as his, not the country’s. He could have hardly found as much a hack as Pam Bondi, who was confirmed with just one (disgraceful) Democratic vote, mentally unstable John Fetterman. Trump treats the position as if it were an extension of his personal legal team and Bondi was part of his legal defense during his first impeachment and has supported his claims regarding the 2020 election. Trump’s comments about needing a “Roy Cohn” reflect a desire for loyalty over independence. Bondi, with her history of knee-jerk support fits this mold to a T. There’s no doubt that her alignment with Trump's priorities are already the center of how she sees her job rather than a traditional focus on impartial justice. Trump isn’t the first. Harding and Coolidge had bribe-taking Harry Daugherty, who many people consider the worst AG in history. Wilson had Mitchell Palmer, probably the second worst. Pro-slavery fanatic Caleb Cushing was AG for Pierce. Before he was appointed the worst Supreme Court Chief Justice ever, Roger Taney was Andrew Jackson's AG. Nixon had John Mitchell, Reagan had Ed Meese, George W. Bush had Alberto Gonzalez, Trump had Bill Barr. The opposite were independent attorney generals like RFK (for JFK), Edward Levi (for Gerald Ford), Griffin Bell (for Jimmy Carter), Janet Reno (for Bill Clinton), both Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder for Obama.
The perception of an Attorney General's independence or alignment with the president often depends on the political climate, the actions taken by the AG, and the controversies of their time. Some AGs have managed to maintain an image of independence despite being appointed by presidents with whom they had personal or political connections. The balance between loyalty to the president and independence in law enforcement has always— going all the way back to Edmund Randolph and George Washington— been a delicate one, shaped by the character of the individuals involved and the political environment. Historical assessments can differ based on the criteria used to judge independence versus loyalty.
No one imagines that Bondi won’t be remembered as one of the worst of the worst. Michel noted that in her day one announcements she made clear that “her office would effectively gut the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) regulations that bring transparency to the U.S.’s foreign lobbying sector. While Bondi said that she would focus on targeting lobbying crimes ‘similar to more traditional espionage,’ this completely leaves out acts like lobbying for image management or lifting sanctions— two of the primary areas where foreign oligarchs have hired lobbyists. Indeed, the move risks making FARA effectively toothless against kleptocrats, leaving all of us in the dark about what these figures are hiring American lobbyists for. Similarly, Bondi announced that she would eliminate the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force. While this body was relatively new, it was the only one in the U.S. specifically dedicated to unearthing the kinds of influence and infiltration schemes launched by the Kremlin and other malign regimes. A direct outgrowth of Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election, the body had already made significant headway in uprooting these influence networks in Washington and beyond. Now, it is gone.”
Bondi also pronounced that the U.S. would effectively gut two other key pieces of legislation aimed at stamping out foreign corruption. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), passed in the 1970s, blocked U.S. businessmen from bribing foreign officials. The more recent Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) served as a companion of sorts, making it illegal for any foreign officials to demand bribes from U.S. businesses. Both pieces of legislation served as the bedrock of the American anti-corruption regime. Now, the U.S. will apparently focus only on cases related to “smuggling” or the “trafficking of narcotics and firearms,” not on cases where dictatorships and their proxies cozy up with crooked American businessmen.
That is not all. In perhaps the most dreadful move, Bondi announced that her office would completely eliminate anything that targets kleptocrats writ large. As one of her memos outlined, the Trump administration will dissolve bodies like Task Force KleptoCapture, which has investigated and seized assets linked to Russian oligarchs (among others), as well as the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, which helped repatriate those looted assets.
These two bodies have always faced an uphill battle. There was never any illusion that they would ever be able to identify or freeze every asset related to those regimes that steal from their own people, or successfully send that money back to those suffering on the ground. However, the U.S. succeeded in seizing and repatriating billions of dollars, putting oligarchic forces around the world on notice that none of their assets were safe. Now, with the flick of her pen, Bondi has undone all of this and eliminated one of the most effective tools in the U.S.’s counter-kleptocracy arsenal.
These moves are, all told, breathtaking. In a single day, the U.S. has eliminated or kneecapped its most successful and most prominent counter-kleptocracy tools. Years of progress have suddenly been undone, hobbling ongoing efforts to hold the crooked and the corrupt to account.
Still, it is worth noting that none of these moves are especially surprising. As a former lobbyist for the Qatari dictator, Bondi could hardly be a fan of foreign lobbying regulations. Trump himself had previously described the FCPA— the decades-old law that launched the U.S.’s efforts to target corruption— as “horrible.” Trump has long been cozy with those aiding the Kremlin, not least former campaign manager Paul Manafort or former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn. These moves from the new administration are part of broader efforts to dismantle efforts to target white-collar crime that could have been anticipated.
But it is one thing to anticipate them and another to watch them play out in practice. Suddenly, whatever pretense the U.S. had of being an anti-corruption crusader has been decimated. Whatever concerns Russian oligarchs— and related figures elsewhere— might have had about being targeted and prosecuted by U.S. officials have gone up in smoke.
…Other democratic countries can, and should, try to pick up the slack. Places like the European Union should finally pass legislation bringing transparency to foreign lobbyists. Countries like the U.K. and Canada should beef up their prosecutorial teams as much as possible to target oligarchs. Democratic countries around the world should be talking, right now, about creating their own task forces to tackle kleptocracy and putting those plans into action.
But for years the U.S. led the charge, both in terms of prosecutions and assets returned. Now, there is a gigantic hole in the middle of the world’s counter-kleptocracy efforts. The only ones rubbing their hands in glee as a result are the kleptocrats, oligarchs, and dictators suddenly watching the field open up in front of them, knowing that they will never be caught.
From his days as a New York real estate mogul, Trump has had an unusually close relationship with the same kleptocratic networks that Bondi is now empowering. Long before his presidency, Trump was already a known quantity in the murky world of Russian oligarchs and their money-laundering schemes. His properties— from Trump Tower to his failed Atlantic City casinos— became favored destinations for laundering illicit Russian capital, with oligarchs snapping up Trump-branded condos as a way to stash their wealth. Figures like Felix Sater, a convicted felon with ties to both the Russian mob and Trump, highlight just how deeply intertwined Trump’s business empire was with dirty money. Now, with Bondi dismantling America’s anti-kleptocracy protections on Trump’s behalf, Trump is essentially returning a favor— ensuring that the very oligarchs who propped up his business empire can operate freely, without fear of scrutiny. This isn't just corruption; it’s the full-circle realization of a long-running financial and political symbiosis between Trump and the shadowy figures looting Russia and beyond.
2 questions about Bondi:
1) As a UF grad, why did she go to Stetson Law? Roughly 1/2 of the UF Law student body had gone there undergrad in my day. It's a much better law school than Stetson, and it's a lot cheaper for a FL resident. I wonder if she got into UF Law.
2) She graduated Stetson Law 1990, but was not sworn into the FL Bar until 6/24/91. I'm curious as to whether she passed the Bar exam on her first try. I know from personal experience that passing it on the first try was challenging in that era, but it wasn't as challenging as it is now.
My point is that a USAG should be…