U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 23, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
In late January, President Donald Trump announced the creation of a new position: fraud czar. And he nominated federal prosecutor Colin McDonald for the position.
Trump, in a January 28 post on his Truth Social platform, wrote, "I am pleased to nominate Colin McDonald to serve as the first ever Assistant Attorney General for National FRAUD Enforcement, a new Division at the Department of Justice, which I created to catch and stop FRAUDSTERS that have been STEALING from the American People. My Administration has uncovered Fraud schemes in States like Minnesota and California, where these thieves have stolen Hundreds of Billions of Taxpayer Dollars. Colin McDonald is a very Smart, Tough, and Highly Respected AMERICA FIRST Federal Prosecutor who has successfully delivered Justice in some of the most difficult and high stakes cases our Country has ever seen."
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a confirmation hearing on McDonald in late February.
But MS NOW's Steve Benen, in a February 25 column, argues that Trump is the last person who should be declaring a "war on fraud."
"At this point, we could talk about the fact that Trump lied about the scope of the fraud controversy in Minnesota," Benen writes. "We could also talk about the fact that the administration has produced no evidence of 'worse' fraud in other states. We could even explain why his claims about balancing the budget by eliminating fraud were absurd. But as important as those elements are, there's another dimension to this that's arguably more important: the conflict between the message and the messenger."
The "Rachel Maddow Show" producer continues, "Indeed, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington noted via Bluesky, 'Trump announcing a war on fraud is like a criminal announcing a war on crime.'"
Benen goes on to lay out four "details" about Trump that "Republicans prefer to ignore."
Trump, Benen observes: (1) "ran a fraudulent 'university' that led him to pay a steep out-of-court settlement," (2) "oversaw a fraudulent charitable foundation and had to pay $2 million in court-ordered damages," (3) "ran a family business that was found to have engaged in systemic fraud," and (4) "issued a series of presidential pardons for people convicted of committing fraud."
"In the abstract, there's nothing inherently wrong with an administration trying to root out alleged abuses in social insurance programs," Benen explains. "But Trump is literally the only president in American history to have been found liable in a civil fraud case. If he were serious about fighting a 'war on fraud,' he should expect to see that war arrive at his own doorstep."