billionaire tax

Republicans warn GOP plan to fix Trump’s self-made crisis will 'backfire'

The GOP has a plan to address the high cost of diesel fuel, but a CNN expert said it would backfire.

Regular gas prices may see a small drop after per-barrel prices fell due to the Saudis using a pipeline to funnel oil to the other side of the country for export. Diesel keeps climbing.

Former representative and current U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers (R-Mich) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), are promoting the idea that the U.S. should consider refusing to export its own diesel to other countries and instead use it only within the U.S. Senior business reporter at CNN, Matt Egan, explained that such a strategy might "backfire."

The fuel that powers goods transport across the U.S. by rail and truck reached a record high. It's adding costs to items shipped across the country, like goods, groceries and even oil and gas.

"So, these Republicans are saying it's a make-or-break-glass moment," said Egan. "They're saying, let's keep more American energy at home instead of sending it overseas. Researchers, though, they're telling me that not only would an export ban fail to make diesel cheap again, they warn it could really backfire."

If such an export ban were put in place, experts told Egan that prices might drop initially, but the effect would be temporary and localized to the Gulf Coast and Midwest, where there are many refineries.

"The problem is that overseas diesel prices would surge, and that's an issue for the West Coast and the East Coast, because those areas rely on imports. So diesel prices might not fall at all on the West Coast or the East Coast. They might actually go up. Not only that, but how are refineries are going to respond if they lose one of their biggest customers, foreign buyers? They're going to produce less fuel," he said.

Ultimately, that means less gas and higher prices.

George W. Bush's former energy advisor Bob McNally told Egan that an export ban would be "an A.P.E., an authentic policy error."

"In fact, he said this would be the king of the A.P.E.s. Now, perhaps this is why the White House is not embracing these calls for an export ban. A White House official telling me that the administration is not considering an export ban or restrictions, although this official added, at this time," Egan continued.

Still, there's pressure on the White House to fix the crisis created by the war in Iran. AAA reported that, since it began tracking fuel costs, it has never seen an 83 percent spike in price.

"Bottom line though, [on the] export ban: We're going to continue to hear these calls, but analysts don't think this is going to fix the problem. In fact, they warned it could make it worse," Egan closed.



Trump 'openly gloating' and knows he can cross any 'red line': DC insider

Behind closed doors, many GOP insiders are worried that the 2026 midterms will bring a blue wave even larger than the one in 2016 — which found Democrats flipping more than 40 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. But according to Never Trump conservative Miles Taylor, President Donald Trump and his aides are "gloating" and feeling "emboldened" — and won't be deterred by a backlash, whether it comes from a blue wave or major lawsuits.

Taylor was serving as chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when Democrats flipped the House in 2018 — an event that, according to Taylor, didn't make Trump any less audacious. And in 2026, the former Trump administration official warns, the president and his aides aren't going to be discouraged by either lawsuits or possible Democratic gains in the midterms.

"Anyone hoping the losses (in 2018) would humble him was sorely mistaken," Taylor recalls. "Donald Trump was on the attack. He fired his attorney general, spoke openly about ejecting his chief of staff and set his sights on Cabinet members who challenged his erraticism and frequent impulses toward illegality. He didn't want anyone around to say 'no' to whatever his warped conscience cooked up next. On the same day, Trump blew up at CNN's Jim Acosta during a post-election press conference for asking uncomfortable questions about the Russia investigation and the president's immigration policies."

Taylor continues, "Afterwards, Trump decided he would simply throw him out of the White House, breaking with decades of norms that credentialed members of the press are given access to cover the American presidency. That night, I was at dinner in the restaurant of the Trump Hotel with a member of the president's Cabinet and senior national security officials. A few tables away sat the White House communications chief with a group of aides. They were openly gloating and celebrating, before the story had even hit the news. They'd had the Secret Service stop Acosta and take away his pass. If the press didn't report on Trump the way Trump wanted, he'd censor them."

Taylor notes that eight years later, Trump is banning three news organizations from the White House: CNN, MS NOW and Politico — resulting in a major lawsuit. But that lawsuit, according to Taylor, won't discourage Trump in 2026 any more than he was discouraged in 2018.

"He didn't learn the lesson his critics thought he would after 2018's Acosta episode," Taylor emphasizes. "The reporter sued, the courts sided with him, and he got his White House pass back within days. Even Fox News backed its rival's case. But Trump was unfazed. The lesson he took from losing wasn't that there was a red line he should never cross but that crossing it had cost him nothing. He faced no real consequences. The media kept covering him, just as always."

Taylor continues, "Emboldened, the president has referred to his latest action as an 'assault on the FAKE NEWS' and insisted: 'I don't have to let them into the people's house.' This isn't a man who’s worried about a court ruling over freedom of speech. He's wielding the weapon of intimidation to get anticipatory obedience — to send a warning signal to everyone still covering the U.S. government, domestically or internationally."

Trump donor scored special Treasury license to buy Russian-linked mine

A very wealthy donor to President Donald Trump scored a deal with a Russian state-owned bank that would normally be off-limits due to sanctions, the International Consortium of Independent Journalists reported.

Konstantin Sokolov is a Russian-American businessman and a major donor to Trump's political groups. In 2025, he gave $11 million to MAGA Inc., the president's super PAC, and also contributed to Trump’s White House ballroom project.

Trump signed off on new sanctions last week. The new sanctions would target Russian officials, financial institutions, energy and defense sectors and oil-shipping networks. It also authorizes tariffs of up to 100 percent on major purchasers of Russian oil and gas, one explainer outlined.

But already, Trump's funder is exempt, according to a Treasury Department decision. Sokolov will be able to buy a major copper mine in Armenia from the Russian state-owned bank.

"The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, known as OFAC, can grant a license to individuals or companies to complete transactions that would otherwise be prohibited by sanctions," the ICIJ explained. "OFAC states on its website that it may grant a license to do business with sanctioned Russian entities when it is in the interest of the applicant and the U.S. government."

Sokolov's spokesperson confirmed that such approval was given.

Sokolov was also appointed chairman of a new $200 million State Department enterprise fund that will invest in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, which is a strategic geographic region at the border of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Armenia is expected to benefit. That means Sokolov has two overlapping roles: first, he owns or manages private businesses in Armenia, including the copper mine. Second, Sokolov helps oversee a U.S. government-backed investment fund that may invest in Armenia.

Armenian lawmakers and critics are concerned that the relationship creates a potential conflict of interest by essentially granting Sokolov public or government-supported investment and decision-making in a country where he also has large private financial interests.

Armenia’s National Assemblymember Mesrop Manukyan said when speaking to the ICIJ that Sokolov’s position “create[s] legitimate questions about … the separation between private commercial interest and decisions involving public or government-backed funds.”

Sokolov's spokesperson also claimed there was “no evidential basis” to link Sokolov's donations to Trump and approval by Trump's government. Suggesting otherwise “would be incorrect and wholly misplaced," they added.

While the administration and Sokolov deny any corruption, the report raises legitimate questions about transparency, favoritism and whether private business interests could overlap with Trump's government power.

MAGA rages at Catholic bishop who condemned Republican's racist post

A racist social post by Bo French, GOP nominee for Texas railroad commissioner, set off an intense debate among Republicans — with veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove saying he would vote for the Democratic nominee and President Donald Trump attacking Rove as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). And according to Democratic insider Christopher Hale, a Catholic bishop is now the target of MAGA rage for calling French out.

After Texas won a college football game, French posted a photo of University of Texas, Austin fans celebrating the victory — and French was offended that they were Indian-America. French, in a September 13 post on X, wrote, "I heard UT graduation this year looked like this. I didn't believe it. The problem is obviously now far worse than anyone imagined."

Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth vehemently condemned French's post, tweeting, "This is racist and sinful rhetoric that seeks to harm and to divide. It is disturbing that it comes from a candidate for public office. An apology is called for."

Olson's post drew a scathing response from MAGA Republicans and French defenders.

MAGA conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec is among French's defenders, telling Olson, "Every nation in the world is allowed to determine appropriate levels of immigration, Bishop Christ never commanded that all nations of the world accept endless amounts of foreign immigration. In fact, elected officials are allowed to publicly discuss these issues in a republic."

Hale notes, "Under Olson's post, the replies called him an apostate who should 'go join Prevost in Rome and pray to Pachamama,' a shepherd who cares 'more for the wolves than for his own sheep.' One account informed him that 'Racism is not sin.' That last line is the whole fight, and Olson knows it. He gave an interview to Kevin Clarke of America magazine, published Friday, and repeated the charge. French's refusal to apologize, and his decision to raise money off the uproar, left the bishop 'astounded and disturbed.' The photo, he said, was 'a point of political exploitation,' and its logic was plain: 'there's no knowing if those young people are citizens or not. All that is known is that they are of a different complexion.'"

Hale adds, "These were, in his reading, 'not even dog whistle words.' The students in it 'were being disqualified from participation in American society — even in something like a football game, as important as that is in Texas — by the color of their skin.'"

Hale points out that some Texas Republicans aren't defending French's racist post but are still supporting his campaign.

"A Catholic bishop in Fort Worth said more in three sentences than the governor of Texas has managed in a week," Hale argues. "He was called an apostate for it, and he answered by giving an interview in which he repeated himself, slowly, for the record.

That is what a shepherd looks like when the wolves are inside the fence. The Republican Party of Texas may yet find its voice before November. The Church in Texas did not wait."

'I’m not answering that': Scott Jennings ducks Trump press-ban questions

CNN commentator Scott Jennings was mocked for being "job hungry" for a post at the White House while President Donald Trump bans his own network.

Jennings is considered the frontrunner for the press secretary post. The president has spent weeks asking friends what they think of Jennings and whether he'd be a good choice. It has been almost a month since Karoline Leavitt's last day at the White House and neither Jennings nor anyone else has been brought in to replace her.

Trump decided to ban members of the press, prompting a full boycott from other outlets in solidarity. The end result was Trump losing live media coverage of his press events.

The Daily Beast pointed to a moment on CNN Monday night: Jennings was confronted by guest host Sara Sidner, who commented, “Scott, I don’t know if you know this, but your name is up for running for the next press secretary.”

Jennings, who has been fighting for the job, commented only with, "Hmmm."

Sidner asked if he stands with the president over the ban or with the network that pays him.

Jennings dodged, “I think he’s unlikely to prevail in court."

“It seems to me the net result of this has been — he has less reach," said Jennings. "And his message is not going to get out as much. If this sort of becomes the way it is, he will be seen and heard by fewer people — which I think is actually a net negative, since he’s his own best spokesperson and his own best press secretary.”

Jennings also said that he believes Trump “sparring” with reporters “works to his advantage. And so if you take them out, you lose that a little bit.”

“I’m not a lawyer... but based on what I’ve heard, it’s unlikely to stick. And it might be a little self-defeating if you consider that you want the president to be heard and seen more, like I do... This seems to be working against that," he added.

Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin pressed Jennings into a corner, “If you’re press secretary, you’re not going to do that. Is that what you’re pledging here right now?”

But Jennings refused to commit to anything. “I’m not answering that.”

Jennings then suggested that CNN wasn't all that bad and that he sees a huge difference between CNN, Politico and MS NOW, which he said is like a "alternate reality."

Sidner said, “Well, some people might say that about Fox.”

“Yeah, [Barack] Obama. He said that about Fox," said Jennings.

Again, Sidner pressed Jennings about whether he thinks that his employer is a "fake news" network, as Trump alleged.

“I sometimes strongly disagree with the framing,” Jennings said. “But no, I think we need to cover the news here, and I think we still can cover the news. But I consider this to be a news outlet. I consider Politico to be a news outlet. MS [NOW] is a different story in my view.”

Rogin chimed in, “If the president’s lost Fox News, that’s probably not a good sign, you know?”

He added that the result of Trump's ban has been nothing but bad for the White House. Trump has “actually ensured” tougher coverage with the ban.

Rogin wondered if Trump simply can't take it emotionally.

“He doesn’t want to hear it,” Rogin suggested. “He doesn’t really care if you report bad things about him, he doesn’t want them to be in his face. He doesn’t want it at his desk, in his room, in his office. He’s built a cocoon around himself, where nobody ever tells him no, where his reality is just agreed to, whether it matches the reality of the rest of us are living in.”

“That has its own danger, because we have a leader of the free world who is eliminating all of the feedback channels that might tell him that, hey, American people really don’t like the Iran war, hey, the American people really do care about the Epstein files, the American people really don’t think the economy is good," said Rogin.

It penetrates a bubble of Trump's chosen reality, which Rogin said is "really important." However, "that actually took a hit today."

The president was humiliated on the pro-Trump network Newsmax when it became clear that the professional press pool brings all of the equipment to capture high-definition video and audio of anything the president says. Trump was mocked mercilessly online for the press event in which no one knew what he was saying, resulting in sparse coverage.

Banned outlets filed a lawsuit on Monday and asked for a temporary restraining order to restore their passes while the case works its way through the courts. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

'Won’t miss the circus': Departing GOP lawmaker tears apart Trump and MAGA

SIOUX FALLS — Partisan squabbles are keeping Congress from effecting change, and President Donald Trump has made it worse when he has “lost focus,” said South Dakota Republican U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, who added that he finds many of Trump’s personal characteristics “lacking.”

Johnson, who will leave office in January, aired his frustrations about national politics and celebrated his staff and some colleagues at a Sioux Falls Downtown Rotary Club meeting Monday. During a question-and-answer session, he reflected on his eight years in Congress.

“I won’t miss the circus, but I’ll miss the clowns,” Johnson said.

Afterward, Johnson told reporters he believes the Republican Party is “well positioned” on national policy and is “going to get some much needed wins” by January, before a new Congress convenes. Beyond that, it’s more complicated.

The central problem, Johnson said, is voters choosing to vote for “somebody they think is fighting rather than for somebody who is getting things done.”

“If the voters don’t start voting for thoughtful problem solvers a little more often, then I think we’re going to continue to find it hard to get things done quite as often as we should in D.C.,” Johnson said.

He said the anger and frustration in politics at all levels will eventually shift and the “fever will break,” but that’s “clearly not where we’re at today.”

Johnson chose not to run for reelection to the U.S. House and lost his bid for South Dakota governor in the June Republican primary. He previously served as a member of the state Public Utilities Commission and as chief of staff for former Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

Johnson did not share specific plans Monday about his future.

“I want my next 20 years to be as impactful as my last 20 years,” he said.

The following Q&A is excerpted from the Rotary meeting and has been edited for length and clarity. Questions came from a Rotary moderator and a Rotary member.

Q: You’re heading into the final months of your eighth year as South Dakota’s lone representative. What was it like coming into the office as a freshman representative and what did you learn in those first few years?

A: I think I was a little surprised. I had run in no small part because I just thought there were too many jerks in politics, and, of course, there are, although the ratio is a lot lower than I expected. In the end, I sort of felt naive. I had done what most people do, which is assume that the 10 or 15 members of the United States House that you can name — your Marjorie Taylor Greenes or your Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes — are representative of the whole. And they’re really not.

So the big surprise for me was how many decent human beings, really successful inventors or nonprofit executives or four-star generals, successful educators, nurses, just really great human beings are there.

I’m not going to try to convince you that we do a good job, for reasons I still don’t entirely comprehend. The whole is less than the sum of our parts, but the inputs, the human beings, I was surprised by how decent most of them are.

Q: How have things evolved or how has your approach to tackling issues evolved?

A: I try to be an optimist, but I don’t want to just whisper sweet nothings in your ear. I think things are markedly worse in D.C. than when I arrived eight years ago. I don’t blame me, but I do think the tribalism is much higher. I think the populist rage and angst is much higher.

All of the incentives in the system reward bad behavior and so most members, of course, they’re good people, so they do want to serve, they want to make the right decisions. They also want to survive. But I think they understand that, walking through the field of public policy, there are almost an inexplicably large number of landmines that can just end a career on any given day because you say this about data centers, or you say that about January 6th, or you say this about vaccines or that about Lake Ontario. I think it creates that survival versus serve dichotomy.

I think that there’s more tension there than there would have been five years ago and 10 years ago. I think it is a very, very difficult time to serve.

More of my colleagues in the House have lost their primaries for Senate, for governor — not to pick any scabs — or their own House race than at any point that I can recollect. Two dozen of them, which is really unusual.

Normally if you’re running for the U.S. House, for your own job or higher office, you’re very well positioned. People generally know you, you generally have a campaign team, you know how to raise money, you’ve got some accomplishments to run on. Now, service of that kind is a pretty substantial albatross around someone’s neck.

Fewer and fewer of my colleagues are excited about running, and I think fewer and fewer really decent people are running for the first time. Now, the problem for all of this is that we’re getting a barely functional government with great inputs. If we get only mediocre inputs, I’m concerned that we will not even meet the functional standards.

Q: What’s the Dusty spin on that?

A: I still think there’s tremendous optimism in the American private sector. We’re going to cure cancer and we’re going to cure Type 1 diabetes and we are figuring out how to do a better job of housing people in an increasingly inflationary environment. Outside of D.C., there’s a lot of reason for optimism.

I think city governments in this state are generally run pretty well. Most local governments in this state choose progress over drama, and I think that’s true for our state government as well. Always be hesitant when someone wants to centralize more power in Washington, as, unfortunately, more and more in my party seem to want to do. We’re the party of federalism and yet we sometimes like big government conservatism. Be wary about centralizing more power into the less functional level of government.

Q: You’ve experienced three different administrations while you’ve been in Congress. What was different between the three?

A: I would focus on the commonalities between those three, and that is when the administration was focused it was pretty effective and it got good things done — regardless of whether you’re talking about Trump 1.0, Biden or Trump 2.0.

I think we do get into trouble when there’s a lack of focus, and I try to tell the president and his team that, “If we’re talking about the border, middle class tax cuts, a return to common sense and some of the social issues where most Americans believe the pendulum has swung too far, that’s where we’re going to be able to build. If we are fighting about the reflecting pool and renaming Lake Ontario, we’ve lost focus. I think that can make it more difficult for your party to do well in November, sir.”

Any of those three administrations, when they lost focus and discipline, our country was poorly served.

Q: You’ve been a close adviser to Speaker Mike Johnson over the past several years. Tell us about how you were tapped for that role and what it’s been like to help lead him as he became a new speaker.

A: It really started with Speaker Kevin McCarthy. I went to D.C. and I thought that the lane I was going to carve out was being the dorky little policy guy, which of course I am, but I really was going to be a committee leader not in title but that people knew that if they wanted to understand Title I programs and how they interact with crop insurance or county averages they’d say, “Go to Dusty. He understands the issue.”

I was lucky enough to be in the right time and the right place to give the right people counsel. McCarthy said, “Hey, I’ve got to have you in some of these rooms. We’re negotiating the Fiscal Responsibility Act with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president. We don’t want to default on debt, we do need to spend less money, we do need to reform welfare. I need you in the room as part of the negotiating team behind the scenes.”

That was like being a backup quarterback. You never know when you’re going to get the call, but you go out and understand the playbook and assignments, and you make sure you hit people, run the routes, then you’re going to get an opportunity to help the team again.

When McCarthy was thrown out of office, the natural inclination for Mike Johnson is to get rid of the old team because they’ve just been fired. Mike and I had a pre-existing personal relationship and I was held over in Mike’s cabinet. I’m sure everybody here has very legitimate criticisms of Mike Johnson, but I have to tell you it would not be easy to govern in an incredibly dysfunctional time with an incredibly dysfunctional U.S. House. The fact that we haven’t defaulted on the debts that we have, I would say the U.S. House has been somewhat more functional than people had any right to expect, and I think Mike Johnson is a huge part of that.

Q: How do you assess the personal character of President Trump?

A: I find many of his personal characteristics lacking. Particularly, as I talked about, the lack of focus can be problematic for our country. That being said, I do think that we’re so tribal in this nation anymore. While some are too ready to celebrate his every act, some are too willing to denigrate his every act. I think securing the southern border — that kind of clarity of conviction and willingness to get it done, I think, is the kind of bold leadership that caused his supporters to continue to view him favorably.

Clearly, he is too quick to criticize others, particularly with personal insults. I think he doesn’t value our allies and friendships abroad as much as I do, and I don’t think he values some of these institutional norms, which I think are part of the American success story.

A new Supreme Court decision is suffocating local TV stations

During one week in early September, Sen. Susan Collins (R‑Maine), one of her joint fundraising committees and a super PAC backing her campaign each bought airtime on a Portland TV station during “Wheel of Fortune.”

For each 30-second spot, both Collins’ campaign and her JFC paid $2,200. The super PAC paid $10,000 – more than four times as much.

That price gap between candidates and outside spenders is standard. Federal law guarantees candidates steeply discounted “lowest unit charge” rates in the weeks before an election. While party committees and JFCs, historically excluded from the discount, are now poised to access it, super PACs continue to pay higher prices.

But campaign finance experts warn that a recent Supreme Court action could scramble that longstanding system even further – and potentially give those outside groups a backdoor discount.

“If you’re a wealthy person who wants to support your preferred candidates to the maximum extent possible, you now have another vehicle through which you can direct very large amounts of money,” said Erin Chlopak, a senior director of campaign finance at the Campaign Legal Center.

The court’s Sept. 4 order temporarily reinstated a Federal Communications Commission interpretation that allows political parties and joint fundraising committees to access the same low rates previously available only to the candidates themselves. Because a separate Federal Election Commission decision also allows JFCs to include super PACs, watchdogs say the ruling opens a path for outside groups to indirectly buy airtime at candidate prices, undermining the core purpose of federal ad protections.

“That [super PAC] could pay for campaign advertising, and because the candidate is a participant in the JFC, under the FCC’s interpretation, they would get the benefit of the lowest unit charge,” said Chlopak, whose organization has filed an amicus brief in the case urging the Supreme Court to leave the lower court’s ruling in place.

In that brief, the Campaign Legal Center described JFCs as “a perfect vehicle for super PACs seeking to finance campaign-style ads at LUC rates” and predicted the avenue “will almost certainly be exploited by super PACs and other soft money groups” if the FCC notice takes effect.

Run of rulings makes party-funded ads ‘appealing’

The current landscape stems from a rapid series of shifts in federal campaign finance rules.

First, an FEC advisory opinion in 2024 opened the door for super PACs to take part in JFCs alongside candidates – an unusual arrangement that lets nominally independent groups raise money in concert with campaigns. Then in March, the FCC issued a public notice interpreting federal law to allow JFCs and political parties to receive the same lowest-unit-charge ad rates historically reserved for candidates. And in June, the Supreme Court struck down longstanding limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with federal candidates, effectively supercharging the value of party-aligned dollars – a move that Robert Kelner and colleagues at the Washington‑based law firm Covington & Burling wrote “can be expected to breathe new life into party power in campaign spending.”

Taken together, those changes dramatically expand the efficiency of coordinated party spending. “That decision, combined with the FCC decision saying, ‘And by the way, when parties coordinate with candidates, they get the benefit of this discounted advertising rate,’ means not only can you give more money to help the candidates, but that money will go even further because the costs of advertising are going to be lower,” Chlopak said.

The result, she said, is that party‑funded advertising has suddenly become “quite an appealing enterprise.”

Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters offered a blunt assessment of what the removal of the coordination cap could mean, telling the right-leaning Washington Reporter in June that access to the candidate rate means the party could ultimately pay “20 cents on the dollar” for those ads. “We’re going to be able to obliterate these guys, and then we’re going to be able to work directly with the candidates and make sure that we’re having maximum efficiency,” Gruters said.

The ruling also shifts donor incentives – “even if only slightly” – toward giving to parties instead of outside groups because parties can spend those contributions more efficiently, said Erika Franklin Fowler, a co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks broadcast ads in federal elections.

“Some see this as a good thing because it places a bit more power in the hands of parties, which, in general, are more accountable to voters than are groups,” Fowler said.

Same time slot, different prices

Documents filed with the FCC by Portland ABC affiliate WMTW‑TV for the week of Sept. 1-7 list dozens of ads purchased by the Collins campaign, by Susan Collins for Maine (one of her JFCs) and by Pine Tree Results PAC, a pro‑Collins super PAC. All three bought air time during “Wheel of Fortune” during a week that included the start of the 60‑day window when candidates must receive the lowest unit charge. The station charged Collins’ campaign and her JFC $2,200 each for fixed placements during the episode airing Friday, Sept. 4 – the first day of that window. Pine Tree Results PAC paid $10,000 for each of two spots in a weekday rotation during the same week with no guaranteed airdate.

But Pine Tree Results isn’t just a super PAC supporting Collins’ reelection efforts. It is also a participant in Collins Victory Committee – a separate JFC that includes Collins’ campaign, her leadership PAC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, FEC records show. Under the Supreme Court’s order, the JFC that lists Pine Tree Results PAC as a participant also could potentially access the same $2,200 lowest unit charge rate, rather than the $10,000 market rate the super PAC paid as a standalone buyer.

In other words, the price gap illustrated by Collins’ race may not last.

Federal law has long required broadcasters to offer candidates the “lowest unit charge” – the cheapest rate available for comparable commercial airtime – during the final weeks before an election. That discount is meant to ensure candidates can communicate with voters even as ad prices skyrocket.

Outside groups such as super PACs and party committees have never qualified for those rates and, historically, they have paid far more for the same airtime. A Fourth Circuit panel reaffirmed that interpretation in late August, striking down the FCC’s March notice and ruling that the statute is “unambiguous” that only candidates themselves are entitled to the discount.

The GOP’s Capitol Hill committees – the National Republican Congressional Committee and the NRSC – joined the case and appealed the ruling. They argued the panel had no jurisdiction to strike down the FCC’s public notice because it was not final, and instead remained under review. They asked the Supreme Court for an immediate stay to prevent broadcasters from rescinding the FCC-approved expansion of long‑established lowest‑unit‑charge rates during the election season. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the groups, saying the Democratic candidates lacked standing. OpenSecrets reached out to both Republican Hill committees but did not receive responses from either.

The Supreme Court order on Sept. 4 sided with the Republican groups, reinstating the FCC’s interpretation that treats coordinated party and joint fundraising committee ads as “candidate use” – and therefore eligible for the lowest unit charge.

In a joint statement issued in response to the stay, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Executive Director Devan Barber and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Deputy Executive Director Will Van Nuys decried “a concerted effort by [President] Donald Trump and national Republicans to flood the midterm elections with money from billionaire donors.”

Ruling reshapes rules for 2026, raises long-term questions

While the order is not a final decision, it immediately reshapes the rules for the 2026 midterms.

The Republican Hill committees stand most likely to benefit in the short term because their war chests are larger than those of their Democratic counterparts, said Michael Beckel, the director of money-in-politics reform at the nonpartisan research group Issue One. According to FEC records through June 30, the NRCC held $92 million in cash on hand and the NRSC had $56 million. By comparison, the DCCC held $80 million and the DSCC had just under $40 million. Beckel predicted both parties will “also try to stockpile significant political cash for coordinated ads at low rates.”

Beckel and Fowler agreed that over the long term, the order will not disproportionately help either party.

“Historically, both parties have quickly adapted to changes in the campaign finance landscape,” Beckel said. “Bottom line: Voters will be seeing a lot more ads sponsored by party committees this fall, even as ads sponsored by super PACs and dark money groups continue. Ads by super PACs and dark money groups are not going away, even as parties spend more on coordinated ads with candidates.”

But the ruling raises longer-term concerns about the influence of megadonors, Beckel said. Currently, donors may not give more than $7,000 directly to a candidate’s campaign, if they max out to both the primary and general election limits of $3,500. But with individuals allowed to give each party committee up to $44,300 per year and limits on coordinated spending by parties and candidates gone – and those party committees able to stretch those dollars further through lower ad rates – the math changes dramatically.

“Megadonors can now give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party for coordinated expenditures with that same candidate,” Beckel said. “If we see mega-joint fundraising committees emerge for House and Senate candidates similar to the mega-joint fundraising committees that frequently boost presidential candidates, wealthy megadonors may be able to give more than $1 million through the parties to benefit a specific candidate. Such large contributions increase the risk of corruption and the appearance of corruption.”

However, granting the parties access to the lowest unit charge, Fowler countered, ultimately could result in more transparency if the ads they air contain explicit party labels that “often help viewers better understand the sponsors.”

“We think of the purchasing power more in terms of the structural benefit afforded to candidates than we do about current partisan fundraising advantages, which can change from cycle to cycle,” she continued.

This article was originally published by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. View the original article.

GOP senators 'clash' as Trump’s 'double whammy' sparks red state backlash

Economists are warning that soaring diesel prices will make a wide variety of products more expensive. In response, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), according to The Hill's Alexander Bolton, is on board with a proposal to "embargo the export of diesel to increase supply and lower prices at home." But that proposal, Bolton reports, is setting off an intense "clash" among Senate Republicans.

"Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is open to the idea," Bolton explains in The Hill, "but oil-state Republicans have slammed the proposal as a 'gimmick.' The soaring cost of diesel is putting political pressure on Republicans in farm states such as Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, where Democrats now have a chance to win Senate seats that weren't viewed as competitive a year ago."

Bolton adds, "The double whammy of President Trump's global trade war, which has impacted commodities such as pork and soybeans, and the mounting cost of fuel and fertilizer has put farmers in a foul mood, and some Senate Republicans fear an angry backlash in key red states."

In a September 19 post on X, Grassley wrote, "W diesel $6.57 in Iowa why doesn't Pres Trump put an embargo on diesel exports like presidents in the 70s put embargoes on ag products bc food prices were inflated. High diesel prices ARE KILLING FARMERS INCOME."

Thune argued, "The export ban, honestly, makes probably more sense to me. I think that suspending the (gas) tax is a short-term thing and then you create holes in the Highway Trust Fund."

But Senate Republicans have a variety of views on the proposal.

Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) complained, "It's a gimmick." And Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is skeptical, telling The Hill, "We actually produce more than we consume here, produce more diesel in this country than we consume. We're talking about global supply, so I worry that we do something in the short-term … that doesn't really move the needle."

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) is expressing skepticism as well.

Rounds told The Hill, "I'd want to see how they would do it. The bigger problem we've got right now is, as I understand it, in California, we've already lost two more refineries because of California's strict environmental rules. They've shut down two more refineries. I would like to get those back up and operational again."

Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, believes that the proposal would make diesel prices higher, not lower.

On X, Sommers tweeted, "Americans are hurting from rising diesel prices, and policymakers are understandably searching for answers. But restricting U.S. diesel exports would make the problem worse, not better — for consumers, farmers and the broader U.S. economy."

Corruption alert: Trump saved Susan Collins from sweeping FBI investigation

In the final weeks of 2019, a top fundraiser for Sen. Susan Collins walked into a perilous meeting at a Corner Bakery in Washington, D.C.

For the first time in her two-decade Senate career, the Republican lawmaker from Maine was in danger of losing her seat. President Donald Trump’s dismal approval ratings were dragging her down in the polls, and she was falling behind her likely 2020 Democratic challenger in fundraising.

Scott Reed, head of the Collins super PAC, was on a mission to close that gap. Reed was meeting that day with three executives from a Hawaiian defense contractor, Navatek. A year earlier, Collins had helped their company land a multimillion-dollar Navy research contract in Maine. Now, seated at a coffee shop not far from the U.S. Capitol, Reed asked them for a $500,000 donation.

Government contractors are banned from making political contributions. More consequentially, for the company to offer donations to Collins in exchange for an official action, or for Collins to accept, would constitute criminal bribery.

But the company did have such a proposal: Navatek was hungry for more government contracts in Maine. If they cut a big check, the CEO told Reed, Navatek wanted Collins to guarantee tens of millions of dollars in additional federal funding.

To skirt campaign finance laws and conceal the source of the funds, Navatek planned to funnel the donation through a shell company. The CEO wanted assurance that Collins would know where the money came from. Reed confirmed that she would, the executive said — and that Navatek would get its government contracts.

After the Corner Bakery meeting, Navatek’s CEO, Martin Kao, sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company. Two months later, he told Navatek executives that Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts, according to an internal company email reviewed by ProPublica.

Three years later, Kao holed up in a conference room to recount the Corner Bakery meeting to a group of four FBI agents and federal prosecutors. The FBI had seen through his shell company ruse, and in 2022 a grand jury indicted him for making illegal campaign contributions. No one working for Collins was charged.

Facing years in prison, Kao hoped to do less time by revealing the entire scheme.

What he told them has never before become public. The Corner Bakery meeting, he asserted, was just one episode in a sprawling pay-to-play operation that embroiled some of the most powerful figures in Congress.

Over three days at the U.S. attorney’s office in Honolulu, Kao laid out in devastating detail how his operation worked. He gave agents a 50-page document naming dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts. Kao and his close associates had donated nearly $900,000 to dozens of politicians, allowing Navatek to establish operations in half a dozen states with over $40 million a year in government funding.

Most damningly, Kao told FBI agents and prosecutors, the company’s work for the government was of no real value. Navatek’s research under his stewardship never resulted in products the military wanted to buy, ProPublica found.

Kao’s tell-all interviews with the FBI lasted into late 2024. His confessions opened up an entirely new phase of the investigation. Agents sifted through hundreds of thousands of records seized during Kao’s arrest and found that many were consistent with his account of widespread influence peddling.

Kao had credibility issues. He was now a felon trying to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. And there were other challenges. Building a corruption case against elected officials requires extraordinary proof of a quid pro quo arrangement, in part because the Supreme Court has narrowed what counts as bribery.

Even so, by the end of 2024, the agents had enough evidence to pursue a sweeping bribery probe that could ensnare top lawmakers of both political parties. They asked their supervisors to approve a new investigation and contemplated using undercover operatives to gather more evidence. Although their effort was in its early stages, and it was unclear where it would lead, FBI agents asked Kao extensive questions about his dealings with Collins and her office.

Then Trump returned to the White House. Consumed by a campaign of vengeance, he stacked the Department of Justice with his personal lawyers and demanded a purge of anyone who had ever investigated him.

The specialized FBI and DOJ teams handling public corruption investigations, some of which were involved in Trump-related cases, were eviscerated. One of the agents who had taken Kao’s confession was pushed out as retribution for her role in investigating Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Dozens of agents and prosecutors quit amid the department’s destruction, including the career attorney assigned to Kao’s case.

Trump’s Justice Department no longer takes on public corruption in any meaningful fashion, former officials said. The investigation sparked by Kao’s revelations is dead. And the government is no longer talking to an informant who had offered a road map to corruption in Congress.

The White House referred ProPublica to the FBI.

FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson said the agency had investigated claims against Collins years ago “and ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is totally false.” Williamson said the Trump administration has removed agents only “if they have been found to have acted unethically, undermined the mission, or engaged in weaponization of law enforcement.”

Williamson did not respond to questions about the new investigation launched in 2024 based on Kao’s previously unreported cooperation with the FBI.

ProPublica is revealing the existence of the case for the first time. We reviewed a trove of evidence gathered by the FBI and thousands of pages of legal records, and interviewed dozens of people familiar with Navatek, its Washington operations, and the FBI inquiry to conduct our own investigation. We independently corroborated much of Kao’s account. Whether or not Kao’s dealings with politicians amount to criminal bribery, the Trump Justice Department has little interest in finding out, and his sheer success reveals how easily influence is purchased in Washington today. This is the first in a series of stories drawn from our reporting.

Of all the politicians Navatek courted under Kao’s leadership, Collins was its most important patron. The senator’s office steered government contracts worth millions toward the company while her campaign was pumping Kao and his network for donations, according to emails seen by ProPublica. Sometimes they cut checks within 24 hours of the annual defense spending bill, which funds military contracts, clearing a key Senate hurdle.

Collins’ office did not specifically address questions about the Corner Bakery meeting, the senator’s relationship with Kao and the millions she helped appropriate for Navatek.

Annie Clark, Collins’ deputy chief of staff, told ProPublica in an email that Collins’ office “vigorously” denies allegations of bribery and pay-for-play made by Kao, calling his claims “outlandish.” Collins’ campaign was not part of the discussions between Kao and the super PAC, and her office “fully cooperated” with the FBI investigation, Clark said.

“The fact that the FBI and Biden-led Department of Justice thoroughly examined the Navatek matter demonstrates this,” Clark wrote. “These issues were resolved in 2021 and concluded when the Collins campaign disgorged the illegal contributions that Martin Kao had made without our knowledge.”

Collins is once again fighting to keep her seat, in a race that could determine control of the Senate. On the campaign trail, she spotlights the funding she directs to Maine while leading the appropriations committee, which she calls “the most powerful committee in the Senate.”

She demonstrated that power with Navatek. After the budgets became law, Collins’ office pushed the Navy to award specific contracts to Navatek, emails seen by ProPublica show, even though awards are supposed to be competitive.

“I spoke with Sen. Collins office regarding the $8M,” a naval official wrote in an email on Feb. 6, 2019. “The interested company is Navatek.”

In a meeting with Collins and two campaign officials, Kao said, the officials told him the senator expected his ongoing support. Collins told him: “You’ve seen me deliver,” Kao said.

Reed knew Kao was behind the $150,000 anonymous donation, emails showed, because Kao told Reed he planned to donate through a shell company. “Very smart,” Reed replied in an email viewed by ProPublica.

Reed did not respond to detailed questions about the Corner Bakery meeting, the $150,000 donation and Kao’s allegations. “I understand Martin Kao is now sitting in federal prison,” Reed wrote in a brief email. “I never had any communications with Senator Collins [or] her staff about Martin Kao and/or Navatek.”

But an email seen by ProPublica suggests that someone must have relayed the news of Kao’s donation to Collins, just like Reed promised to do in Kao’s recounting of the Corner Bakery meeting.

Seven days after the super PAC cashed the check from Kao’s shell company, one of Reed’s subordinates emailed a Navatek lobbyist asking for Kao’s phone number: “Senator Collins would like to call Martin to thank him.”

The Navatek Method

Before Kao’s doomed reign as CEO, Navatek was a sleepy Hawaiian engineering company with a few dozen employees. It was founded in 1978 by Steven Loui, a talented engineer and scion of a powerful Hawaiian shipping family. Navatek was not a profit center but a vehicle for Loui’s passion projects, like an experimental catamaran for navigating Hawaii’s choppy waters.

The company benefited from the largesse of the legendary Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, multiple former Navatek executives and employees said, whose family had been close to the Loui family for generations. Inouye was a master of earmarks, a practice that allowed lawmakers to insert funding for specific companies by name in the federal budget. The self-styled “King of Pork” steered hundreds of millions in federal dollars to Hawaii. Former Navatek employees say he was affectionately referred to as “Uncle Dan.” “Before Inouye took an interest, Congress didn’t even know our companies existed,” a longtime Loui lieutenant wrote in a 1998 op-ed.

In response to ProPublica questions, Loui said that money appropriated by Inouye made up “a minority” of Navatek’s revenue.

Inouye’s death in 2012 made the company’s future uncertain. Not only was Navatek’s direct line to Capitol Hill gone, but Congress was doing away with the abuse-riddled earmark process. Now companies would nominally have to compete on the merits for government contracts.

Kao joined Navatek in 2008 as its chief financial officer. Loui charged him with replacing Navatek’s rainmaker and eventually named Kao CEO. He sold Kao the company in return for a share of the profits.

Kao was an unusual figure among the company’s low-key naval engineers and boat aficionados. He seemed to be aping a Wall Street tycoon, telling employees they could either be “a beast or a bitch,” a former executive said. He drove to work in a Ferrari and abruptly fired subordinates who displeased him — one time, in the middle of the night. “He had very little interest in the technology,” one former employee recalled. “Martin was only interested in dollar signs.”

Kao also exaggerated and lied. He told different people he had stepbrothers whose parents died in a fishing accident or an avalanche, a former employee recalled. He lied to Loui about having law degrees from both the University of California, Los Angeles and New York University. He once told a lobbyist who raised quarter horses that he owned a herd of polo ponies, just to one-up him.

Despite his erratic behavior, former employees agree Kao hit upon an effective way to replace the lost earmarks. If the company could not rely on a benefactor like Inouye, it would develop a stable of them.

Navatek targeted the powerful members who sat on the House and Senate appropriations committees. These members could no longer earmark money for specific military contractors. But they retained the power to budget millions of dollars for equipment or bespoke research and development. Because Pentagon budgets run thousands of pages and are largely prepared in secret, it is easy for appropriators to add a line item intended for a contractor like Navatek without leaving any fingerprints.

Soon, Kao had refined a playbook. Navatek would concoct a research project in partnership with a university in a member’s district or home state, and Kao would make a large initial campaign donation. Working with a team of pricey, well-connected lobbyists, Navatek would get meetings on Capitol Hill to pitch the research to congressional staff. Navatek kept spreadsheets, reviewed by ProPublica, that listed members of Congress as the “specialty” of certain lobbyists.

Separately, Kao later told the FBI, there would be a meeting of just the key players. One engineer, who traveled with Kao to D.C. to explain the technical side of a project, recalled being sent out of the room once the subject of money came up. Sometimes in these smaller meetings, members of Congress directly asked Kao for donations, he told the FBI. In other cases, he said, Navatek’s lobbyists would relay a request from an intermediary for a specific dollar amount.

Kao told the FBI that the lawmakers, lobbyists and Navatek brass understood these donations were bribes and that the payments were essential to the entire scheme. Kao believed he was buying Navatek’s way into the annual defense budget, not winning over members with innovative engineering proposals.

“I’m not red or blue, I’m green,” he would tell congressional staffers, a former Navatek employee recalled.

While a deal was being struck, Navatek and congressional staffers worked closely on the legislative process. Every year, Congress prefaces the defense budget with massive reports describing the purpose of inscrutable line items. Staffers would include a project description so specific that Navatek would be the only logical pick.

Often, Navatek composed language that ended up, word for word, in Senate funding requests, former employees said. In 2019, for example, Navatek’s priorities were tucked into page 185 of the 307-page report released by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee set aside $21.5 million for “hybrid composite structures research for enhanced mobility,” “electric propulsion for military craft and advanced planing hulls” and a “test bed for autonomous ship systems.” Although Navatek’s name does not appear on the page, these were all projects the company requested, according to internal documents and interviews with former employees.

Once the budget passed, lawmakers’ staff leaned on Navy officials to award Navatek the money. Former contracting officers told ProPublica they felt pressure to go along because money from those contracts funded their office — and because members of Congress had confronted dissenting naval officials in the past. “There’s only so many battles you can fight,” one said. So Congress sometimes got its way even when Navatek’s projects made little sense.

Inside Navatek, employees referred to this strategy as “the method.” And it enabled the company to string together tens of millions of dollars in contracts. The result was the same as getting earmarks: a reliable, growing revenue stream bankrolled by U.S. taxpayers.

“It was a simple enough play. Let’s find the small states that have complementary universities … [and] let’s get access to their senators,” Eric Schiff, a former Navatek executive, told ProPublica. “I’ve met Susan Collins. You can get access to Susan Collins. Once we got the first things working with Maine, then we said, ‘Well, let’s keep reaching.’ And so we did.”

In a statement to ProPublica, Navatek founder Loui said Kao’s “unethical and illegal method of winning contracts” was a departure from how he operated the company prior to Kao’s ownership.

Kao boosted Navatek’s annual revenue from $10 million around the time Loui sold him the company to almost $40 million when he was arrested in 2020. In the second half of 2019 alone, Navatek paid a roster of five lobbying shops more than $500,000.

Even Navatek’s executives were surprised at how far their money went in D.C. “It was eye-opening for me, frankly. ‘Oh my God, all of it is for sale. It’s all for sale,’” Schiff said.

The key players in Kao’s pay-to-play deals went to great lengths to meet in person and leave no trace of an actual quid pro quo, he told agents. “That is why I literally had to fly to D.C. almost every week,” Kao later told the FBI. “Sometimes for a 15-minute meeting.”

But the FBI compiled emails, which ProPublica reviewed, that were suggestive of illegal bargains. Navatek executives and lobbyists spoke openly as if they were buying lawmakers’ assistance. In one back-and-forth, a lobbyist and a company executive described another senator as “fundamentally transactional” and having “a reputation as a pay-to-play office.”

In another message, Andy Winer, who former executives said was Navatek’s chief strategist, reminded Kao to budget money for political contributions based on how much the company wanted in congressional funding the following year.

“Oh my God, all of it is for sale. It’s all for sale.”
Eric Schiff, former Navatek executive

Winer was his guide to the political underbelly, Kao said. A consummate insider, Winer had parlayed six years as chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii into a lucrative lobbying career with a firm called Strategies 360. One of Winer’s former colleagues compared him to the slick lobbyist on the Netflix show “House of Cards” who toggles between the political and corporate worlds.

In another email exchange scrutinized by the FBI, Kao asked Winer about making a $5,600 donation to nudge along a senator who seemed keen to work with Navatek: “Would that ‘help?’”

Winer, who had already donated himself, replied, “With my contribution, I think it sends the right message.” He suggested Kao split up his donation to be “less conspicuous.”

The method didn’t always work. Once, Kao complained that a senator had reneged on a deal and he ought to get his donations back.

“You should not feel aggrieved nor should you ever put that in writing,” Todd Webster, another lobbyist Navatek hired, replied. Webster did not respond to detailed questions.

Winer said he stopped working with Navatek following Kao’s arrest. “The political contributions I discussed with Kao were understood by me to be lawful political contributions. I never participated in, witnessed, or had knowledge of any illegal political contribution, bribe, or agreement to exchange a political contribution for an appropriation, contract, or other official action,” Winer said in an email to ProPublica. “I never advised Kao to make a contribution in exchange for official action.”

Strategies 360 has new ownership that did not oversee Winer while he represented Navatek, its CEO, John Oceguera, said.

Navatek employees began to notice members of Congress visiting their East Coast offices. “You would be like, ‘Oh, there’s this senator walking around,’ and we would get a picture with them,” one engineer recalled.

While some projects involved potentially meaningful research, Navatek’s bread and butter was R&D that went nowhere. As a slideshow prepared by an executive explained, “We thrive in the valley of death,” the term for the bureaucratic gap where research languishes without being developed into a product. The slideshow noted that none of the technology had ever actually been deployed.

The Office of Naval Research did not respond to a request for comment.

In Maine, Navatek was studying ways to modify small boats to reduce the “slamming” impact felt by passengers at high speeds. With the help of the University of Maine’s giant 3D printer, Navatek made a prototype and unveiled it at a press conference where a Guinness World Records representative declared it the world’s largest 3D-printed boat. But Navatek executives knew the Navy had no plans to use the new design, former employees said.

“[The work] got rolled into a few PowerPoint slides and a white paper, and that was the deliverable,” recalled one who worked on the project. “The boats weren’t delivered to the Navy — the Navy didn’t even want them.”

Kao to Collins: “Here to Help”

The first time Kao came face-to-face with Collins, in 2018, he told the FBI, he had to pay for the privilege.

Collins would not meet unless he agreed to donate to her campaign, he said. While it is not illegal for politicians to exchange face time for contributions — in this case, just a few thousand dollars — it was not the last time Collins would seek Kao’s support.

Navatek had been eager to expand beyond Hawaii, and Maine was a perfect beachhead — a small, coastal state hungry for high-tech jobs that happened to be represented by a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Collins, more than most appropriators, likes to trumpet the dollars she brings home.

To work with Collins, Navatek hired a lobbyist, Glen Mandigo, who also lobbied for the University of Maine and was tight with her office. Mandigo asked how much Navatek wanted in funding and how much Kao was willing to support Collins, Kao told the FBI. The University of Maine did not reply to a request for comment.

In that first meeting with Collins and her staff, Kao pitched an $8 million boat hull research project for Navatek and the university. Collins seemed supportive. Not long after, Mandigo called Kao and said Collins wanted him to bundle tens of thousands of dollars for her reelection, suggesting Navatek throw a fundraiser, Kao said.

In an email to ProPublica, Mandigo denied taking part in a pay-to-play arrangement.

“I did not advise Navatek officials, nor would I advise any client, that support from Sen. Collins was contingent on campaign donations,” Mandigo wrote. He said that in his 25 years of working with Collins and the Maine delegation, “I never saw or heard of such behavior from the Senator or her staff.” Clark, Collins’ deputy chief of staff, told ProPublica it was “wholly inaccurate” to say Mandigo was close to their office.

FBI agents had collected voluminous corporate records and email correspondence between Navatek and Collins’ inner circle. Much of that evidence aligned with the story they were now getting directly from Kao.

The FBI had spotted his out-of-the-blue donations in the summer of 2018, just before Collins included $8 million for Navatek’s proposal in the defense budget. Emails showed her staff made it clear to the Navy that it should send the money to Navatek. FBI agents also had evidence of Kao and Mandigo planning a fundraiser starting in April 2019. Their emails — with her scheduler and her campaign’s finance director — freely mixed talk of Navatek’s Collins-backed contract with plans to raise money for her.

The principals settled on hosting Collins for a publicity event at Navatek’s Maine headquarters in August 2019, where she posed for pictures with Kao and a model of the company’s experimental boat. Behind the scenes, the FBI saw in emails and company records, Kao orchestrated over $40,000 in donations from extended family in advance of the event. To avoid the legal cap on individual campaign contributions, the emails show, he told Collins’ team to reallocate his excess contributions to his father which an agent highlighted and noted is against election law in a presentation to prosecutors and sent them his father’s full name and address.

“This is perfect,” Amy Abbott, the reelection campaign finance director, emailed Kao after discussing his father’s contribution. “We are so grateful for ALL the Kao support!”

Before the event, Kao said, Collins, Abbott and another staffer met with him in private. One of the staffers told Kao the campaign expected more donations. It was in this meeting that Collins said, “You’ve seen me deliver,” he told the FBI.

Less than one month after the event, the Senate released a draft of the defense budget containing $21.5 million for Navatek’s pet projects in Maine. Kao emailed a Collins campaign fundraiser — who would in theory have nothing to do with a government contract — four days later, saying, “Thanks again for all the support from Sen Collins.”

“I’ve been involved in many tight races in the past and understand last minute ‘needs’ come up,” he continued. “We are here to help anyway we can … financially or whatever.”

Kao’s desire to donate even more money led to the fateful Corner Bakery meeting with the head of the Collins super PAC, called the 1820 PAC, Kao told the FBI. Unlike Collins’ campaign, which could accept only $5,600 per election from individuals, the super PAC could accept unlimited contributions.

The super PAC emailed Kao a memo before the meeting stressing the need to raise money with “urgency.” At the meeting, Kao and Reed, the super PAC’s chair, hammered out a deal for a six-figure donation, Kao told the FBI. Over email, Kao informed Reed of his shell company scheme, saying he had cleared it with his lawyer. “They are super vague and very difficult to get any background info on,” Kao reassured him. “Thanks for doing this,” Reed replied.

The FBI spoke to the other Navatek executives at Corner Bakery, who confirmed the meeting took place. One, David Kring, the company’s top scientist, told ProPublica he had no memory of what was discussed.

The other, Duke Hartman, told an FBI agent it was just “a get to know you meeting” with the chair of the super PAC and they did not discuss the “particulars of a donation.” Agents, records show, came to believe Hartman was lying about his role in Kao’s pay-to-play operation and would name him as a formal subject of a future investigation. Hartman was not charged. He did not respond to a detailed request for comment.

A few weeks after the $150,000 check to the Collins super PAC cleared, in February 2020, Kao and his team met with Collins’ office and secured a new round of funding.

“We were very warmly received,” Kao reported to his colleagues in an email obtained by the FBI. “Excellent meeting. Total of $32M will be supported.” Records show the Senate allocated at least $10 million that year based on Navatek’s proposals.

Navatek’s ambitions peaked in mid-2020. As the company waited to see if Collins would survive her reelection campaign, executives prepared to ask their champion on the appropriations committee for even more funding the following spring, internal documents show.

Other documents from that time show the company was courting senators from seven additional states and gunning for more than $200 million in new appropriations. Navatek expected to have offices in more than a dozen states by the end of the following year, including a new 15,000-square-foot facility in the Portland, Maine, harbor.

Kao, meanwhile, closed on a $4.5 million beachside home in an exclusive Honolulu neighborhood; the backyard pool had a waterfall feature. He renamed the company Martin Defense Group after himself, joking that it would simplify his future takeover of Lockheed Martin.

“It was working well, and it would have continued to work well,” said Schiff, the former executive. “Martin got greedy. Just got damn greedy.”

Downfall, Cover-up

In early 2020, the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit good government group, noticed something strange in the public filings for the Collins super PAC. The PAC had received a $150,000 donation from a newly created LLC with a typo in its name: the Society of Young Women Scientist and Engineers, with no S at the end of “Scientist.”

This was the $150,000 Kao donated after the Corner Bakery meeting. The money had come from Navatek’s account, not Kao’s, violating a ban on government contractors making donations.

The center suspected the society was not a real group but a pass-through to hide the identity of a major political donor. It filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. It took only a few days for a Hawaii journalist to discover Kao’s wife’s name on the society’s paperwork, linking the shell company to Navatek.

Inside Navatek, Kao shifted into damage control mode. He spoke to Reed and the super PAC’s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, and began to hatch a cover-up. In an email released in civil litigation, Mitchell suggested the society make charitable donations — preferably in Maine — which would make it seem like a legitimate nonprofit. “I want to be sure that the LLC proceeds with the ideas we discussed — giving scholarships and recognition to women in engineering, etc.,” wrote Mitchell. “That would help both of us, I think.”

Mitchell added, “We should develop a plan and timetable, so there are some scholarships given over the next several months, and particularly, perhaps in Maine, where the bad press was.”

Mitchell, who later played a major role in Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, did not respond to requests for comment.

Kao and his team settled on donating scholarships to women in STEM. They offered between $5,000 and $25,000 apiece to state universities where they were angling to win government contracts — that way, the cover-up would benefit them politically, too.

But Navatek’s and Kao’s problems were just beginning. Undeterred by scrutiny from the FEC, Kao defrauded the COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program newly passed by Congress. He inflated Navatek’s payroll to amass loans of $13 million, according to a federal indictment. The Navatek founder, Loui, had long since soured on his chosen successor. This was the final straw. He reported Kao to federal authorities.

“This is not how Navatek behaved or conducted business before I sold the company to Martin Kao,” Loui wrote to ProPublica. He said Navatek was successful before Kao’s ownership and had many sources of government funding. After Kao’s arrest, he added, the company fully cooperated with law enforcement.

Loui has since regained control of the company and renamed it PacMar. He is dedicated to restoring its reputation and ability to execute government contracts, he continued. Loui said he fired employees hired during Kao’s tenure who were “not capable of performing quality, professional engineering and science tasks.”

“The company received no Collins-supported funding after Martin Kao’s arrest, nor should it,” Loui added. “What Martin Kao and his cabal did was wrong.”

On Sept. 30, 2020, law enforcement raided Navatek’s Honolulu offices and arrested Kao for fraud. Federal agents in windbreakers seized his laptop and ordered the company’s IT staff to copy the company’s internal servers.

Navatek’s public flameout attracted the attention of Michelle Ball and Kevin Gounaud, two experienced agents in the FBI’s elite anti-corruption unit. Gounaud was a 20-year FBI veteran who had worked on elaborate undercover operations. Ball had made a name for herself taking on politically sensitive cases. In 2018, she led the investigation into Maria Butina, the Russian agent convicted of infiltrating the National Rifle Association in an attempt to influence the Trump campaign.

The agents began digging through thousands of records for details of Navatek’s lobbying operation, donation strategy and ties to politicians.

They zeroed in on Kao’s relationship with Collins. In a 60-slide presentation agents prepared for prosecutors, they highlighted contributions that Kao and his wife made to the senator in 2018, right before Collins placed the $8 million in research funding into the federal budget. Kao had also given Navatek money to various relatives to donate to Collins in 2019, sending her around $33,000 through these illegal straw donors, the indictment said. Kao’s wife and father did not reply to requests for comment.

The government charged Kao in two separate cases: one for defrauding the loan program and another for his campaign finance crimes. His love of talking like a wheeler-dealer — including over email — was a gift to investigators. In one email, he all but admitted the scholarships to young women were a diversion. “Whatever… just a pack of bitches getting free $,” he wrote.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, Kao pleaded guilty in both cases in the fall of 2022. Navatek by then was under court-ordered new management. Awaiting sentencing, Kao worked as a line cook at a Cheesecake Factory.

He began meeting with the same FBI agents and prosecutors who brought him down. For the agents, he was a rare witness: a contractor with deep ties to elected officials saying he would speak candidly about how Washington works.

Kao faced nearly a decade in prison. “My world and life imploded,” he would later recall in a letter to the Hawaii U.S. District Court. “I was fooled and foolish enough to believe that the power elected officials wielded, and [were] actively willing to sell to anyone wealthy enough to pay, was….‘smart business.’”

Over the next two years, Kao sat with agents for at least three dayslong interviews. He told them that politicians, Collins in particular, had been willing participants in his scheme. “It takes two to tangle,” he told them.

Taxpayers funded Navatek’s entire political operation, Kao said. “Most companies of our size do not have the resources to endlessly hire expensive lobbyists and make political donations,” he told the FBI. Navatek solved this by using money from government contracts to hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions, according to interviews, court testimony and internal company records. Diverting money from contracts for lobbying and political donations can be illegal.

For their final meeting, in September 2024, Kao handed the FBI the 50-page document detailing Navatek’s dealings with more than a dozen members of Congress and their staff. It was not only a confession but a road map, with the email addresses and phone numbers of people Kao thought agents ought to subpoena.

Last year, Kao was sentenced to 87 months in prison. The judge in his case offered no leniency based on his cooperation with the FBI. Loui is battling Kao in court to recover the millions he contends Kao stole from the company.

Both Scott Reed and Amy Abbott remain in Collins’ inner circle. Abbott is the finance director for her 2026 reelection effort, and Reed again chairs the main Collins super PAC. Abbott, who is married to Collins’ campaign manager, referred questions to the senator’s communications staff. Clark told ProPublica that Abbott and other campaign staff were interviewed by the FBI and that the campaign was never a target of the investigation.

Earlier this year, Kao agreed to meet a ProPublica reporter at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, where he is incarcerated. But on two occasions when guards summoned Kao over the intercom, he refused to enter the visitation room. Over email, he said he was no longer willing to meet, citing the ongoing litigation. He declined through his lawyer to respond to detailed questions.

By late 2024, Ball and Gounaud, the FBI agents, had come to believe there was enough evidence to warrant a broader investigation into bribery of members of Congress, according to a memo seen by ProPublica.

Before they could embark on their new mission, however, they became casualties of Trump’s retribution campaign.

Ball and Gounaud worked for the FBI’s elite anti-corruption unit known as CR-15, which specialized in investigating misconduct by elected officials. When Trump retook power, his new FBI director, Kash Patel, purged the unit agent by agent.

Ball was targeted for her work on the special counsel investigation of Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election. She was fired in October 2025 in a one-page letter stating she had “weaponized” the Justice Department. She is challenging her firing in a lawsuit. Gounaud was pushed out in early 2026. Both agents declined to comment through their attorney.

Trump also targeted the Justice Department attorneys who worked with CR-15. The team, known as the Public Integrity Section, collapsed spectacularly in February 2025 after staff were ordered to drop a case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Trump ally. The unit’s leadership quit en masse. Trump appointees ordered the remaining prosecutors to halt new corruption cases, just months after Kao made his detailed confession.

Before Ball was fired, however, she managed to take a key step forward.

Based on all the evidence, she persuaded her supervisors to approve a new investigation. It centered on South Carolina, one of the states Navatek eyed for a rapid expansion. The FBI had questions about a steak dinner Kao shared with Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Ayn Rand's darkest dream just became America's real-life horror story

Ka$h Patel’s (his preferred spelling) pathetic performance before Congress last week has left many Americans wondering what’s going on with our federal government. We now have, as a result of Trump’s choices and the endorsement of every or virtually every Republican in the US Senate:

— An alcoholic B-list weekend TV star in charge of our military,
— A formerly heroin- and sex-addicted brainworm-infected lawyer in charge of our public health,
— A wrestling promoter in charge of our Education Department,
— The president’s personal criminal defense lawyer in charge of the Justice Department,
— A C-list reality TV star in charge of our air traffic control system,
— A plumber in charge of Homeland Security,
— A “miracle weight-loss pill” TV hawker in charge of Medicare and Medicaid,
— A social media hustler and children’s book author in charge of the FBI,
— A predatory hedge fund guy in charge of the Treasury,
— A fracking CEO who denies the climate crisis in charge of the Energy Department,
— Jeffrey Epstein’s former next-door neighbor and Epstein Island visitor in charge of the Commerce Department,
— A politician who built his career on a phony story about his parents fleeing Castro in charge of telling America's story to the world,
— The mentee of an anti-democracy billionaire as our VP,
— A Project 2025 architect who was excited to put federal workers “in trauma” in charge of America’s federal budget,
— A racist whose own uncle publicly denounced him as an immigration hypocrite, and whose leaked emails pushed white nationalist material to Breitbart, in charge of immigration policy,
— A former NFL player in charge of public housing,
— A real estate developer and golf buddy with no diplomatic experience whatsoever negotiating with and sucking up to Vladimir Putin,
— The world’s richest man firing people investigating him and his companies while gutting the federal government and killing millions by “feeding USAID into the wood chipper,”
— And a self-described “proud Islamophobe” with no government job vetting the National Security Council staff.

The model here is straightforward: government is something to be exploited for personal gain not public service, because government is essentially an evil thing. So, load it up with incompetents, suck up as much money as you can, and leave the mess to the Democrats:

— Three Republican presidents borrowed over $35 trillion, put it all on the national credit card, just to hand all that money to the billionaires who fund their campaigns and sustain their lavish lifestyles.
— Republicans in Congress have thrown millions off of food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid and refuse to fix Social Security or Medicare.
Trump just discarded many of our pollution rules, a move that will lead to more cancers and asthma among our children.
— Bob Kennedy saluted putting cancer-causing chemicals on our food supply.
— Anything Putin wants from Trump he gets.
— They’re selling off public lands and destroying our park system like there’s no tomorrow, while rewriting America’s history into a white supremacist fantasy.
— Miller’s ICE goons are murdering Americans and getting away with it while imprisoning brown-skinned people without due process.
— Trump has made billions since becoming president through crypto scams and bets on his own war proclamations.

And that’s just the beginning. Which is causing millions of Americans, scratching their heads in wonder, to ask:

“Where did this anti-American-government insanity come from, and how did it come to seize control of the entire Republican Party?”

Reporter Mark Ames documents how, back in the 1940s, a real estate lobbying group came up with the idea of creating a new political party to justify deregulating the real estate and finance industries so they could make more money.

This new Libertarian Party would give an ideological and political cover to their goal of becoming government-free, and they developed an elaborate pretense of governing philosophy around it.

Their principal argument was that if everybody acted separately and independently, in all cases with maximum selfishness, such behavior would actually benefit society. There would be no government needed beyond an army, a police force, and a court system to defend the rights of property owners. It was a bizarre twisting of Adam Smith’s reference to the “invisible hand” that regulated trade among nations.

In 1980, billionaire David Koch ran for vice president on the newly formed Libertarian Party ticket. His platform included calls to privatize the Post Office, close public schools, give Medicare and Medicaid to big insurance companies, end food and housing support and all other forms of “welfare,” deregulate all corporate oversight while shutting down the EPA and FDA, and selling off much of the federal government’s land and other assets to billionaires and big corporations.

Reagan, who won that 1980 election, embraced this view in his inaugural address, saying, “[G]overnment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

He then doubled down on the idea by beginning the systematic process of gutting and crippling governmental institutions that historically had supported working people and the middle class.

Reagan wasn’t just echoing the Libertarian vision; he was also endorsing Ayn Rand’s “Objectivist” view of the world, which traces its roots to a murderous psychopath in 1927.

Back in 2015, Donald Trump told USA Today’s Kirsten Powers that his favorite book was Ayn Rand’s raped-girl-decides-she-likes-it novel, “The Fountainhead.”

“It relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions,” he told Powers. “That book relates to … everything.”

Ayn Rand’s novels have animated libertarian Republicans like former Speaker of the House of Representatives and current Fox News board member Paul Ryan, who required interns to read her books when they joined his staff.

Powers added, “He [Trump],” told her that he “identified with Howard Roark, the novel’s idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment.”

Rand’s hero Roark, in fact, “raged” so much in her novel that he blew up a public housing project with dynamite just to get what he wanted. Sort of like tearing down the East Wing of the White House and threatening to level the Kennedy Center.

Rand, in her Journals, explained where she got her inspiration for Howard Roark and so many of her other novels. She writes that the theme of The Fountainhead, for example, is:

“One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one’s way to get the best for oneself.”

On Trump’s hero Howard Roark, she wrote words that Trump must have loved, saying that he:

“[H]as learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world. He knows what he wants and what he thinks. He needs no other reasons, standards or considerations. His complete selfishness is as natural to him as breathing.”

It turns out that Roark and many of her other characters were based on a real person. The man who so inspired Ayn Rand’s fictional heroes was named William Edward Hickman, and he lived in Los Angeles during the Roaring Twenties.

Ten days before Christmas in 1927, Hickman, a teenager with slicked dark hair and tiny, muted eyes, drove up to Mount Vernon Junior High School in Los Angeles and kidnapped Marion Parker — the daughter of a wealthy banker in town.

Hickman held the girl ransom, demanding $1,500 from her father — back then about a year’s salary. Supremely confident that he would elude capture, Hickman signed his name on the ransom notes, “The Fox.”

After two days, Marion’s father agreed to hand over the ransom in exchange for the safety of his daughter. What Perry Parker didn’t know is that Hickman never intended to live up to his end of the bargain.

The Pittsburgh Press detailed what Hickman, in his own words, did next.

“It was while I was fixing the blindfold that the urge to murder came upon me,” he said. “I just couldn’t help myself. I got a towel and stepped up behind Marion. Then, before she could move, I put it around her neck and twisted it tightly.”

Hickman didn’t hold back on any of these details: he was proud of his cold-bloodedness.

“I held on and she made no outcry except to gurgle. I held on for about two minutes, I guess, and then I let go. When I cut loose the fastenings, she fell to the floor. I knew she was dead.”

But Hickman wasn’t finished.

“After she was dead I carried her body into the bathroom and undressed her, all but the underwear, and cut a hole in her throat with a pocket knife to let the blood out.”

Hickman then dismembered the child piece-by-piece, putting her limbs in a cabinet in his apartment, and then wrapped up the carved-up torso, powdered the lifeless face of Marion Parker, set what was left of her stump torso with the head sitting atop it in the passenger seat of his car, and drove to meet her father to collect the ransom money.

He even sewed open her eyelids to make it look like she was alive.

On the way, Hickman dumped body parts out of his car window, before rendezvousing with Marion Parker’s father.

Armed with a shotgun so her father wouldn’t come close enough to Hickman’s car to see that Marion was dead, Hickman collected his $1,500, then kicked open the door and tossed the rest of Marion Parker onto the road. As he sped off, her father fell to his knees, screaming.

Days later, the police caught up with a defiant and unrepentant Hickman in Oregon. His lawyers pleaded insanity, but the jury gave him the gallows.

To nearly everyone, Hickman was a monster. The year of the murder, the Los Angeles Times called it “the most horrible crime of the 1920s.” Hickman was America’s most despicable villain at the time.

But to Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, a 21-year-old Russian political science student who’d arrived in America just two years earlier, Hickman was a hero.

Alissa was a squat five-foot-two with a flapper hairdo and wide, sunken dark eyes that gave her a haunting stare. Etched into those brooding eyes was burned the memory of a childhood backlit by the Russian Revolution.

She had just departed Leninist Russia where, almost a decade earlier, there was a harsh backlash against the Russian property owners by the Bolsheviks. Alissa’s own family was targeted, and at the age of 12 she watched as Bolshevik soldiers burst into her father’s pharmacy, looted the store, and plastered on her Dad’s doors the red emblem of the state, indicating that his private business now belonged to “the people.”

That incident left such a deep and burning wound in young Alissa’s mind that she went to college to study political science and vowed one day she’d become a famous writer to warn the world of the dangers of Bolshevism.

Starting afresh in Hollywood, she anglicized her name to Ayn Rand, and moved from prop-girl to screenwriter/novelist, basing the heroes of several of her stories on a man she was reading about in the newspapers at the time. A man she wrote effusively about in her diaries. A man she hero-worshipped.

William Edward Hickman was the most notorious man in American in 1928, having achieved the level of national fame that she craved.

Young Ayn Rand saw in Hickman the “ideal man” she based The Fountainhead on, and used to ground her philosophy and her life’s work. His greatest quality, she believed, was his unfeeling, pitiless selfishness.

Hickman’s words were carefully recounted by Rand in her Journals. His statement that, “I am like the state: what is good for me is right,” resonated deeply with her. It was the perfect articulation of her belief that if people pursued their own interests above all else — even above friends, family, or nation — the result would be utopian.

She wrote in her diary that those words of Hickman’s were:

“[T]he best and strongest expression of a real man’s psychology I ever heard.”

Hickman — the monster who boasted about how he had hacked up a 12-year-old girl — had Rand’s ear, as well as her heart. She saw a strongman archetype in him, the way that people wearing red MAGA hats see a strongman savior in Donald Trump.

As Hickman’s murder trial unfolded, Rand grew increasingly enraged at how the “mediocre” American masses had rushed to condemn her Superman.

“The first thing that impresses me about the case,” Rand wrote in reference to the Hickman trial in early notes for a book she was working on titled The Little Street, “is the ferocious rage of the whole society against one man.”

Astounded that Americans didn’t recognize the heroism Hickman showed when he proudly rose above simply conforming to society’s rules, Rand wrote:

“It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. … It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, with a consciousness all his own.”

Rand explained that when the masses are confronted with such a bold actor, they neither understood nor empathized with him. Thus, she wrote,

“[A] brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy [was] turned [by the media] into a purposeless monster.”

The protagonist of the book that Rand was writing around that time was a boy named Danny Renahan. In her notes for the book, she wrote, “The model for the boy [Renahan] is Hickman.” He would be her ideal man, and the archetype for a philosophical movement that would transform a nation.

“He is born with the spirit of Argon and the nature of a medieval feudal lord,” Rand wrote in her notes describing Renahan. “Imperious. Impatient. Uncompromising. Untamable. Intolerant. Unadaptable. Passionate. Intensely proud. Superior to the mob… an extreme ‘extremist.’ … No respect for anything or anyone.”

Rand wanted capitalism in its most raw form, uncheck by any government that could control the rules of the market or promote the benefits of society. Such good intentions had, after all, caused the hell she’d experienced in the Bolshevik Revolution.

Ayn Rand, like Hickman, found peace and justification in the extremes of her economic, political, and moral philosophy. Forget about democratic institutions, forget about regulating markets, and forget about pursuing any policies that benefit the majority at the expense of the very rich — the petty political rule-makers and rule-enforcers could never, ever do anything well or good.

Only billionaires should rule the world, Trump has suggested.

And he tried to put it into place, installing a billionaire advocate of destroying public schools in charge of public schools, a coal lobbyist representing billionaires in charge of the EPA, a billionaire-funded oil lobbyist in charge of our public lands, and a billionaire described by Forbes as a “grifter” in charge of the Commerce Department. Trump’s former chief of staff said that putting children in cages and billionaire-owned privatized concentration camps (where 25 so far have died) would actually be a public good.

As Ayn Rand might say, “Don’t just ignore the rules; destroy them.”

Welfare and other social safety net programs were, as Rand saw it, “the glorification of mediocrity” in society. Providing a social safety net for the poor, disabled, or unemployed, she believed, were part of a way of thinking that promoted, “satisfaction instead of joy, contentment instead of happiness… a glow-worm instead of a fire.”

Rand, like Trump, lived a largely joyless life. She mercilessly manipulated people, particularly her husband and Alan Greenspan (who brought a dollar-sign-shaped floral arrangement to her funeral), and, like Trump, surrounded herself with cult-like followers who were only on the inside so long as they gave her total, unhesitating loyalty.

Like Trump, Patel, Musk, Vance, Kennedy, and their billionaire backers, Rand believed that a government working to help out working-class “looters,” instead of solely looking out for rich capitalist “producers,” was throwing its “best people” under the bus.

In Rand’s universe, the producers had no obligations to the looters. Providing welfare or sacrificing one nickel of your own money to help a “looter” on welfare, unemployment, or Social Security — particularly if it was “taken at the barrel of a gun” (taxes) — was morally reprehensible.

Like Trump saying, “My whole life I’ve been greedy,” for Rand looking out for numero uno was the singular name of the game — selfishness was next to godliness.

Rand’s philosophy, though popular in high school and on college campuses, never did — in her lifetime — achieve the sort of mass appeal she had hoped. But today Ayn Rand’s philosophy is a central tenet of today’s Republican Party and grounds the moral code proudly cited and followed by high-profile billionaires and three former presidents of the United States.

Ironically, when she was finally beginning to be taken seriously, Ayn Rand became ill with lung cancer and went on Social Security and Medicare to make it through her last days. She died a “looter” in 1982, unaware that her her promotion of William Edward Hickman’s sociopathic worldview would one day validate an entire political party’s embrace of a similarly psychopathic president.

The result so far is over a half-million Americans unnecessarily dead from Covid, an economy laid waste, another unending war, the destruction of America’s standing around the world, and the collapse of this nation’s working class.

While the ideas and policies promoted by the libertarian wing of the Republican Party have made CEOs and billionaire investors very, very rich in recent decades, it’s killing the rest of us.

In the 1930s through the 1960s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and JFK/LBJ put America back together after the First Republican Great Depression and built the largest and wealthiest middle class in the history of the world at the time.

Today, 45 years of Ayn Rand’s ideas being put into practice by libertarian Republicans from Reagan to Bush to Trump have gutted the middle class, made a handful of oligarchs wealthier than any kings or Pharaohs in the history of the world, and brought a whole new generation of predators, hustlers, and grifters into the GOP.

And then there’s Trump’s war against Iran, his theft of Venezuela’s oil and gold, his attacks on NATO and threats against Greenland, his cutting off weapons to Ukraine, his cashing in on the presidency in ways that clearly violate the Constitution, and his and the GOP’s multiple efforts to rig our elections.

There’s a popular meme going around the internet these days that says:

“If a monkey hoarded more bananas than it could eat while most of the other monkeys starved, scientists would study that monkey to find out what the heck was wrong with it. When humans do it, we put them on the cover of Forbes.”

If America is to survive as a functioning democratic republic, we must repudiate the “greed is good” ideology of Ayn Rand and libertarianism, get billionaires and their money out of politics, stop Trump and his lickspittles, and rebuild our civil institutions.

That starts with waking Americans up to the incredible damage that 45 years of Rand’s writings and libertarian “Reagan Republicans” have done to this country and giving Congress to Democrats who’ll actually investigate and prosecute these crimes against both democracy and our nation itself.

And that starts with checking your voter registration at vote.org and making a plan today to be sure your vote is both cast and counted.

A long-overdue reckoning is finally closing in on Trump

I’d like to think the working press has finally learned its lesson when dealing with abusive fascists, malignant narcissists, and convicted felons.

I’d like to think that after being called “the enemies of the people” and a grotesque variety of demeaning names, our mainstream media are done inviting vulgar, women-abusing creeps to their dinners where he can projectile vomit all over them while they pick away at their shrimp cocktail, and exchange gossip.

I’d like to think these things, but you’ll have to excuse me if I still don’t.

Our press has been a complete failure and a joke the past decade, and has actively contributed to our demise with their inability to carry themselves like professional journalists.

All that said … I will acknowledge even a hint of progress where I see it.

When news broke Monday morning that the major television networks joined together and suspended their pooled coverage of the dishonest Trump White House after he refused to allow CNN to serve as a pool representative, I had this three-word reaction:

IT’S ABOUT TIME.

Please excuse the heavy language, but that’s about as tame as I can keep it right now.

And before digging into this a little further, I want to reiterate a strong suggestion that I walloped our press over their heads with on Saturday after CNN, MS NOW and Politico were banned Friday from covering Trump’s repellent White House:

ALL media agencies who cover this lying, abusive sicko should refuse to go near that White House until he apologies and stops acting like Stupid Putin.
Starve this maniac, and start feeding America the facts.

Watching our press navigate the past decade in Washington, has been like watching Peter Sellers’ Inspector Clouseau hunt down criminals in the Pink Panther comedies. The only difference, of course, is that Clouseau managed to always get his man, and the media’s stumbling, bumbling approach to journalism hasn’t been at all funny.

They have relentlessly disgraced themselves with their inability and/or refusal to spot and report real news, like Trump’s ongoing attack on our country, and have embarrassed thousands of us, who spent time in the business holding power to account, and calling liars, LIARS.

Right now, we are inches away from losing everything to a political party which spends every waking hour devising ways to extinguish our vote. This is a party that is poisoning our air and water, killing endangered species, and coddling Russia, while attacking Canada.

Up is down in America, and there are cold-blooded, masked government agents roaming our streets and killing innocent people without consequence.

Forget the fact that prices he promised to lower are rocketing ever higher, because Trump is actually filling his pockets with our money.

We are under attack in America, and most of our media goes about its business like we are dealing with nothing but another rainy day.

Even the Associated Press was kicking the lying, duplicitous Trump with both feet Monday when they posted this blast of truth out on Bluesky.

Perfectly put, and more, please. Reporting the truth shouldn’t be this hard.

And this note: I am a fan of AP, for what it’s worth. They were one of the first who Trump went after for reporting the truth when they refused to call the Gulf of Mexico anything other than the Gulf of Mexico in their reporting.

I still see some instances where they can do better, but it’s only because I am an angry, old newspaperman, who has been beaten on by better journalists than myself over the course of a long career for getting even the littlest things wrong.

It is impossible to process just how shoddy and bad things have become with our media the past decade.

Now it looks like being kicked down the White House stairs by a limping 80-year-old deviant was the last straw for a handful of these major media conglomerates. Now we wait to see if this is the beginning of something bolder, a return to truth, and holding power to account, or if they faint from the thin air of standing up for editorial principle, a free press and their viewers.

How will they comport themselves if and when Trump allows them back in OUR White House?

I guess we can hope for the best, but you’ll have to excuse me if I am highly skeptical they’ve learned a damn thing.

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and awarding-winning journalist who ran newsrooms, and worked in the newspaper business for decades. You can find all his work here.

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.