
Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did
Despite the ongoing war, Ukrainians swamped the streets of Kyiv in protest of their president's betrayal of democracy, forcing Zelensky to introduce new legislation reversing the bill he had just signed into law. It was a concession of error—and possibly an empty gesture, because the new bill is hardly a lock to pass the legislature. That Zelensky brazenly weakened Ukraine's anti-corruption guardrails in the first place shouldn't come as a shock. They were erected only under sustained pressure from the Obama administration as part of an explicit bargain: In exchange for military and financial support, Ukraine would rein in its oligarchs and reform its public institutions. Over time, the country drifted, however unevenly, toward a system that was more transparent, less captive to hidden hands.
But in the Trump era, the United States has grown proudly tolerant of global corruption. In fact, it actively encourages its proliferation. Beyond the president's own venal example, this is deliberate policy. Brick by brick, Donald Trump has dismantled the apparatus that his predecessors built to constrain global kleptocracy, and leaders around the world have absorbed the fact that the pressure for open, democratic governance is off.
Anne Applebaum: Kleptocracy, Inc.
Three weeks into his current term, Trump paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—loudly declaring that the United States wasn't going to police foreign bribery. Weeks later, America skipped a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery working group for the first time since its founding 30 years ago. As the head of the anti-corruption group Transparency International warned, Trump was sending 'a dangerous signal that bribery is back on the table.'
For decades, the U.S.did more than prosecute bribery cases; it tried to cultivate civil-society organizations that helped emerging democracies combat corruption themselves. But upon returning to the presidency, Trump destroyed USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, dismantling the constellation of government agencies that had quietly tutored investigative journalists, trained judges, and funded watchdogs.
These groups weren't incidental casualties in DOGE's seemingly scattershot demolition of the American state. Trump long loathed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which he described as a 'horrible law,' an animus stoked by the fact that some of his closest associates have been accused of murky dealings abroad. Crushing programs and organizations that fight kleptocracy meshed with the 'America First' instincts of his base; the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon abhor the export of liberal values to the world.
From the wreckage of these institutions, a Trump Doctrine has taken shape, one that uses American economic and political power to shield corrupt autocrats from accountability. Benjamin Netanyahu, on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, has been a prime beneficiary. Just as he was preparing to testify under oath, Trump denounced the prosecution as a 'political witch hunt' and threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the trial moved forward. Given Israel's reliance on American support, the threat had bite. Not long after Trump's outburst, the court postponed Netanyahu's testimony, citing national-security concerns.
Trump acts as if justice for strongmen is a moral imperative. No retaliatory measure is apparently off limits. To defend his populist ally in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces charges related to an attempted coup, Trump revoked the visa of Alexandre de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case. Last month, Trump threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian steel, aluminum, and agricultural exports to punish the country for Bolsonaro's prosecution.
This is hard-nosed realism, not just ideological kinship. To protect himself, Trump must defend the rights of populist kleptocrats everywhere. He must discredit the sort of prosecution that he might someday face. That requires recasting malfeasance as perfectly acceptable statesmanship.
Listen: The kleptocracy club
By stripping anti-corruption from the moral vocabulary of American foreign policy, Trump is reengineering the global order. He's laying the foundation for a new world in which kleptocracy flourishes unfettered, because there's no longer a superpower that, even rhetorically, aspires to purge the world of corruption. Of course, the United States has never pushed as hard as it could, and ill-gotten gains have been smuggled into its bank accounts, cloaked in shell companies. Still, oligarchs were forced to disguise their thievery, because there was at least the threat of legal consequence. In the world that Trump is building, there's no need for disguise—corruption is a credential, not a liability.
Zelensky is evidence of the new paradigm. Although his initial campaign for president in 2019 was backed by an oligarch, he could never be confused for Bolsonaro or Netanyahu. He didn't enrich himself by plundering the state. But now that Trump has given the world permission to turn away from the ideals of good governance, even the sainted Zelensky has seized the opportunity to protect the illicit profiteering of his friends and allies.
Yet there's a legacy of the old system that Trump hasn't wholly eliminated: the institutions and civil societies that the United States spent a generation helping build. In Ukraine, those organizations and activists have refused to accept a retreat into oligarchy, and they might still preserve their governmental guardians against corruption. For now, they are all that remain between the world and a new golden age of impunity.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump urges Fed board to 'ASSUME CONTROL' as 2 top officials say why they broke with Powell
President Trump said in a social media post Friday that the Federal Reserve Board should 'ASSUME CONTROL" as two Fed governors outlined why they broke with Chairman Jerome Powell on rates. The president urged the Fed board, which Powell chairs, to "DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE' if Powell won't support lower interest rates. His comments came just before Fed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman explained in new statements why they disagreed with Powell Wednesday and argued for a quarter percentage point rate reduction at the Fed's last meeting. Both Waller and Bowman cited worries about the labor market as a reason to start cutting again. 'I believe that the wait and see approach is overly cautious, and, in my opinion, does not properly balance the risks to the outlook and could lead to policy falling behind the curve,' Waller said in his statement. Bowman added in her statement that the 'labor market has become less dynamic and shows increasing signs of fragility.' It was the first time two Fed governors have dissented in a monetary policy decision since 1993. The statements from Waller and Bowman came just 30 minutes before July's jobs report released Friday morning, which showed the US economy added fewer jobs than expected last month. Trump seemed to praise the statements after they were released, saying on Truth Social: 'STRONG DISSENTS ON FED BOARD. IT WILL ONLY GET STRONGER!' Trump's attempts to sway the Fed board marks another escalation in his campaign to pressure Powell. The president said Thursday that Powell is "TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL" to have his job. Powell at a press conference Wednesday did not budge from his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation and the economy, saying that there is still a "a long way to go" to figure that out and "you have to think of this as still quite early days." He also declined to say whether a cut was on the table for the Fed's next meeting in September and made it clear that inflation was still a concern as the Fed balances its dual mandate of stable prices and maximum employment. "In the end, there should be no doubt that we will do what we need to do to keep inflation under control." A new reading on inflation released Thursday showed price increases accelerated in June more than expected as inflation remained above the Fed's 2% target. That new reading "will do little to ease the Fed's concerns about tariff-driven inflation," Capital Economics assistant economist Harry Chambers said in a Thursday note."If these pressures persist, as we expect, a September cut looks unlikely." Traders on Thursday narrowed the odds of a cut in September, lowering them below 40%, but they raised them back above 55% following the release of Friday's weaker-than-expected jobs report. Waller argued in his statement Friday that "the price effects from tariffs have been small so far, and since we will likely not get clarity on tariff levels or their ultimate impact on the economy over the course of the next several months, it is possible that the labor market falters before that clarity is obtained — if it ever is obtained. "When labor markets turn, they often turn fast." In her statement, Bowman also emphasized that the lasting inflationary impacts from tariffs are likely overstated and warned the labor market could turn south faster than current forecasts. Bowman cautioned that economic growth has slowed more than some headline data may suggest, saying "underlying economic growth has slowed markedly." Specifically, Bowman cited a slowdown in private domestic final purchases — essentially spending on goods and services by US businesses. Wednesday morning's second quarter GDP data showed this spending rose at an annualized rate of just 1.4% in the second quarter, the slowest since 2022. Headline GDP, in contrast, showed the economy expanded at a 3% rate in the second quarter. "If demand conditions do not improve, firms may have little option other than to begin to lay off workers, recognizing that it may not be as difficult to rehire given the shift in labor market conditions," Bowman added. Trump on Wednesday said he does expect a cut at the next meeting, telling reporters that "I hear they're going to do it in September." The decision to keep rates on hold this week was expected to increase tensions with Trump, who has also in recent weeks been invoking a $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's headquarters as a way to question the chair's management of the institution. Trump had toned down his criticism in the week leading up to the Wednesday meeting. During a visit to the construction project last week, he said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Asked last Thursday what might lead him to back off the barrage of critiques that Trump has been leveling against Powell for weeks, the president said, "I'd love him to lower interest rates," before patting Powell on the back. But following the decision to keep rates on hold for the fifth consecutive meeting, Trump turned back to a harsher view of the Fed chair in his posts. 'Jerome 'Too Late' Powell, a stubborn MORON, must substantially lower interest rates, NOW,' he said in his post Friday. 'IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE, THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices


The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Army's acquisition process for new weapons systems is still broken
To the surprise of many, the U.S. Army, long considered to be the most bureaucratically hidebound of the military services, appears to have successfully reoriented itself toward the demands of a potential war in the western Pacific. For example, at this month's Talisman Sabre military exercise with Australia and Singapore, the Army employed its Typhon missile system, which entered service in 2023, to sink a maritime target at a distance of over 100 miles. And in that same exercise, it employed the HIMARS rocket artillery system in conjunction with the other two nations to demonstrate interoperability among them. Recognizing the growing threat from China, the Army began to reorient itself during the Biden administration and has therefore easily and quickly adapted itself to the Trump administration's priorities. But notwithstanding its strategic reorientation, the Army's acquisition processes continue to suffer from a long-standing inability to consistently field major new weapons systems. The Army continues to operate Abrams tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and Apache helicopters that, although upgraded over the years, are fundamentally products of the mid-1970s. The list of failed Army programs is both long and troubling. In 1982, the Department of Defense canceled the Roland short-range air defense missile system, originally a Franco-German product that the Army unsuccessfully sought to modify and integrate. Three years later, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger canceled the Sergeant York Division Air Defense gun which, like Roland, had been in development since the mid-1970s. The Sergeant York not only had spiraling costs but was also unable to track low-flying targets and suffered from a range too short to attack missiles fired from Soviet helicopters. In 1987, the Army had to cancel its Aquila remotely piloted vehicle program — the forerunner to today's drones. The Aquila suffered from cost overruns and development delays, as well as an inability to carry the payloads and data links for which it had been designed. In 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld terminated the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, which also suffered from cost overruns and was too heavy for the expeditionary operations that became the military's priority after 9/11. Two years later, Rumsfeld canceled the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter. The cancellation represented the latest in the Army's decades-long failure to replace the late 1960s vintage OH-58 Kiowa Warrior. The Army tried again with its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program, and in 2008 this too was terminated. The Army's armor programs at best have had mixed results. The service successfully fielded the lightweight Stryker vehicle, which has seen a number of upgrades and variations since it was first entered full-scale production in 2005. But that was not the fate of the Manned Ground Vehicle, a key element of the Future Combat System, which was meant to be a lightweight companion to the Abrams tank. The Pentagon terminated the Future Combat System program in 2009 due to cost overruns and technological challenges, and the Manned Ground Vehicle, which suffered from the same shortcomings, collapsed with it. In June, the Army terminated its M-10 Booker combat vehicle program, previously known as Mobile Protective Firepower. The Booker was meant to be a lightweight air-droppable vehicle that could be carried on a C-130 aircraft. After having taken delivery of 80 of them, the Army determined that the M-10 was too heavy for the aircraft and a poor fit for the service's operational requirements. The common thread in all these failures is the Army's manifest inability to anticipate evolving requirements, to control costs and to avoid program delays. As the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, cutting-edge technologies will be critical to success on future battlefields. To be effective in any future contingency, the Army will have to overhaul its entire acquisition system. It simply cannot tolerate the program delays and cost growth that have stymied so many previous development programs. Moreover, the Army must carefully assess its requirements for new systems, focusing on a range of future contingencies and not limiting itself to any one of them. It is therefore critical that as the Army contemplates acquiring a follow-on to the M-10, and for that matter replaces key weapons systems like the Abrams tank, it should not restrict its requirements and programs to contingencies in the western Pacific, where it is likely to do no more than to supplement Navy, Marine and Air Force operations. Instead, the Army should look beyond both its current Pacific orientation and expected forthcoming reductions in its European presence. Its future program development and acquisition should also account for its ongoing and critical role in support of NATO's ability to deter an aggressive and predatory Russia that seems likely to continue menacing Europe for many years to come. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.


The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Wisconsin Republican faces angry town hall over Trump agenda
Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) was heckled and booed during a Thursday town hall in his district over a slate of GOP policies, including immigration, the 'big, beautiful bill,' and President Trump's tariffs. Steil faced particular criticism of the administration's aggressive deportation campaign, drawing jeers from the crowd as he attempted to answer. 'What I view is the moral hazard created by the Biden administration by allowing the U.S.-Mexico border to remain unsecure,' he began, before pausing and shrugging his shoulders as the audience began to boo. An audience member later in the town hall referred to Alligator Alcatraz, the recently constructed detention center in the Florida Everglades, as a 'concentration camp.' Other audience members went after Steil for being too closely aligned with Trump. 'I am so disappointed in how you represent us, as the citizens of Walworth County. Southeast Wisconsin is not represented by you,' one man said. 'President Trump seems to run southeast Wisconsin, through you.' The event's moderator stepped in at multiple points to attempt to quiet the crowd, CNN reported, and called out a specific audience member for being 'very obnoxious and very disrespectful.' Angry voters at GOP town halls also made headlines during the House's last recess in March, with constituent ire often focused on cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The backlash escalated to a point where House Republican leaders urged their members to avoid live, in-person town halls. Republicans have also accused Democrats of organizing the public pushback. Steil also faced questions about Trump's tariff policies as new, elevated rates were set to kick in Friday (the town hall took place before the president announced a series of new tariffs would go into effect next week). 'I would like to know what dire economic circumstances put Trump in position of throwing tariffs on over 190 countries,' one voter said, drawing cheers and clapping from the audience. Steil defended the policies as forcing other countries to treat the U.S. fairly in trade. Steil, who represents a district just south of Milwaukee once held by former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R), wrote on X after the 'listening session' that he was committed to holding future events. 'Despite a handful of individuals attempting to disrupt the discussion, we had a great dialogue about the issues that matter most,' he wrote. Last week, Steil was the target of a demonstration in which a group of elderly protesters left what appeared to be a cardboard coffin in front of his home, chastizing him for supporting the 'big, beautiful bill.' Democrats have hoped to use the massive legislation package, which cuts Medicaid and other social services along with extending tax cuts, as a cudgel against Republicans in the midterms.