Latest news with #ProjectonGovernmentOversight
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Bombshell report links Stephen Miller to Palantir. Critics slam deep-state surveillance connections
Stephen Miller , deputy chief of staff in the Trump-aligned camp, owns a major stake in Palantir. The company is set to benefit from Donald Trump's proposed immigration enforcement measures. Ethics watchdogs are examining possible conflicts of interest due to Miller's government role and financial ties to Palantir , as per Project on Government Oversight. Miller's Investment in Palantir Stephen Miller's financial disclosure shows he owns between $100,001 and $250,000 in Palantir Technologies stock. Palantir is a data analytics and defense firm. The disclosure was updated most recently on June 4. Reports indicate that Miller purchased the stock after Trump left office in 2021. However, the acquisition came before Miller pushed for expanding digital infrastructure to support immigration enforcement plans. Palantir's Role in Government Systems In May, the Trump team selected Palantir to help federal agencies create a new data-sharing system. This system will let departments access shared data more efficiently. The planned system could also support surveillance activities under Trump's immigration enforcement strategy. Palantir is also in talks to help the US Navy improve its warship building process. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain Knee pain | search ads Find Now Undo Also Read: Never Before Ever: US President lashes out at Israel for violating ceasefire with Iran. See how did Trump criticize Netanyahu Company's Market Performance in 2025 Palantir has become the top-performing stock on the S&P index in 2025. Its share price has increased by 80% so far this year. The company's performance is attracting attention from investors and government officials. If Palantir secures more government contracts , its stock could rise further. This raises questions about whether public officials with stock in the company could benefit financially. Live Events Conflict of Interest Warnings Ethics groups are warning about possible conflicts of interest. Miller has influence over immigration-related decisions, especially through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If he supports changes to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) digital systems, Palantir could benefit directly. Ethics experts say this connection needs more scrutiny. Democracy Defenders Fund chief counsel Virginia Canter told POGO that Miller's position is concerning. She said he is close to crossing the ethical boundary. Canter said it would be better if Miller did not hold any Palantir shares while involved in immigration policy. Also Read: Social Security benefits may shrink by 2033. Here's why, how it may affect you and how to prepare for future Financial Gains from Trump's Immigration Push Palantir is not the only private company expected to benefit from Trump's immigration policies. Surveillance companies and private prison firms are likely to gain as well. Miller, as one of Trump's close advisers, could earn profits through his investment in Palantir if the company secures contracts. Critics argue that public officials should not hold stock in companies that stand to benefit from their decisions. In Miller's case, his stock in Palantir could be seen as a conflict, especially if he plays a role in expanding surveillance systems. FAQs Why is Stephen Miller's Palantir investment causing concern? Miller holds stock in Palantir, which could benefit from Trump's immigration plans. His government role may influence decisions, raising questions of conflict of interest. What is Palantir's role in Trump's immigration strategy? Palantir is helping build a federal data-sharing system. This system may support surveillance efforts linked to Trump's immigration enforcement plan.
The Hill
10-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Hegseth sparks fears as he moves to ax generals
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's move to ax the size of the U.S. military's top ranks has triggered concerns of a political purge. Hegseth, who on Monday directed significant cuts to the U.S. military's senior-most positions, has already fired several top leaders with no explanation. His latest plan could now eliminate roughly 100 generals and admirals, which he said was necessary to remove 'redundant force structure' and streamline Pentagon bureaucracy. But while it is true America's forces are brass-heavy — with 37 four-star generals and admirals and about 816 officers with one-star and above — experts worry any move to slash those numbers will be done indiscriminately and without care for the institutional knowledge at the top that could be lost. 'We're very concerned, especially with this administration, that this could easily turn into political testing or otherwise clearing out the ranks for political reasons,' said Greg Williams, the director of defense information at the nonprofit watchdog Project on Government Oversight. 'When a new administration comes in and makes a lot of changes, especially at the very top of the military ranks, especially for what are arguably very political reasons — are these officers 'woke or or not?' — that raises the concern that we're undermining that nonpartisan tradition,' he added. Hegseth's plan, announced via a short, one-page memo, calls for at least a 20 percent cut to the number of active-duty four-star generals and admirals, a reduction of generals in the National Guard by at least the same amount, and eliminating the total number of generals and admirals across the force by a minimum of 10 percent. The announcement was not surprising, given Hegseth has been outspoken about the topic. During his confirmation hearing in January, he told lawmakers that the U.S. helped win World War II with seven four-star generals while 'today we have 44 four-star generals.' 'There is an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield. We do not need more bureaucracy at the top. We need more warfighters empowered at the bottom,' he told lawmakers. Hegseth has since revised his argument via a video posted to social media announcing the memo, now noting that 17 four- and five-star generals oversaw 12 million troops during World War II. He compared that with the current force of about 2.1 million service members led by an intended 44 four-star generals and admirals. 'We're going to shift resources from bloated headquarters elements to our warfights,' Hegseth said in the video on social platform X. 'More generals and admirals does not mean more success.' It's not clear how fast the Pentagon plans to weed out the targeted positions, as neither Hegseth's memo nor his remarks identify a timeline for the ordered actions. He only said that the effort would be done 'expeditiously' and in two phases. The first would focus on cutting the number of active-duty four-star generals and admirals as well as the National Guard generals, followed by a second phase to eliminate the overall number of military officers with one star and above. When The Hill asked the Pentagon for details on the process and timeline to identify and carry out the cuts, the Defense official referred questions back to Hegseth's video but would not provide additional information. While there are 44 four-star general officer positions in the military, as set by law, the Pentagon currently has only 37 confirmed individuals after at least five were recently removed by the Trump administration. They include Gen. Timothy Haugh, the former head of U.S. Cyber Command; Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the previous chief of staff of the Navy; Linda Adm. Linda Fagan, the ousted commandant of the Coast Guard; Gen. Charles Hamilton, the former head of Army Materiel Command; and former Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Jim Slife. As for the number of one-star officers and above, there are 857 authorized by law but just 816 currently in the positions. The cuts come as the Pentagon, along with other federal agencies, face pressure to slash spending and personnel as part of a broader effort to shrink the civilian workforce, pushed by Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Hegseth also has made no secret of his desire to purge the military of any so-called woke officers. In a podcast last June, he said he believes more than a third of military officers were 'actively complicit' in allowing diversity initiatives to undercut combat standards. 'We need in the future generals who will reverse them,' he told radio host Hugh Hewitt. There have been attempts to shrink the Pentagon's leadership structure in the past as amid a long-lasting argument about how many generals the military should have. In the past five decades, the number of generals and admirals has increased as a percentage of the total force, according to a study last year by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. But the current number is 'low for the post-Cold War era and substantially lower than the number of [general and flag officers] in the 1960s-1980s, when the Armed Forces were much larger in size than they are today,' the study notes. If the Pentagon has to reduce staff and general officers, four-star positions would be at the top of the list to cut given that it would mean reductions all the way down the line, according to Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel who is now a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. 'When you consolidate staffs you can eliminate a lot of other positions,' Cancian said. 'If a position goes from a four to a three-star, then everything below that goes down one level. The office that a four-star has is larger than the office a three-star will have. There's a shrinkage all the way down,' he added. 'It's not just replacing one person, there's a whole organization, a whole pyramid that changes.' But he pointed out that Hegseth's argument that there is bloat at the top of the military compared to the past doesn't hold up when you look at the costs. 'If you look at the dollars that generals oversee, that has not changed from WWII to today,' he said. 'Generals command fewer people but forces are much more capital intensive, the operations are much more intensive, and there's more civilians too. You put all that together, there is no bloat, it's about the same.' Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) has been the most pointed in his questioning of Hegseth's reasoning for the cuts, warning that removing senior officers without 'sound justification' could hamper the military. 'I have always advocated for efficiency at the Department of Defense, but tough personnel decisions should be based on facts and analysis, not arbitrary percentages,' Reed said in a statement Monday. 'Secretary Hegseth has shown an eagerness to dismiss military leaders without cause, and I will be skeptical of the rationale for these plans until he explains them before the Armed Services Committee,' he added. And House Armed Services Committee member Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a former Marine, said Hegseth is 'creating a formal framework to fire all the generals who disagree with him and the president,' The Associated Press reported. 'He wrote a book about it. He wants to politicize the military,' Moulton added. 'So it's hard to see these cuts in any other context.' Lawmakers can potentially upend Hegseth's plans as the number of general officer positions in the military is set by law and would need to be changed by Congress. Senate and House members could also insert language into the annual defense authorization budget to stop the administration from cutting specific positions.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Jeffries gives jolt to stalled congressional stock ban push
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is giving a big boost to the effort to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, an idea that has bipartisan backers in Congress and broad support among the public. The deliberate and public push from Jeffries — coming as he accuses Republicans of potential 'stock manipulation' given President Trump's suggestion that it was a 'great time to buy' ahead of his tariff pause — is particularly notable given how his predecessor, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), bristled at the idea. But there is a long way to go before any changes take effect in law. The push to bar stock trading for members of Congress gained steam in recent years amid reports that lawmakers may have breached laws in place to prevent transactions from being made on insider information, particularly around the COVID-19 pandemic. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, director of government affairs at the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, noted that it is a rare issue that has united hard-line conservatives and progressives. 'You would think it would be a potential winner because of those dynamics, but we just haven't seen it make it over the finish line,' Hedtler-Gaudette said. But with what 'Jeffries said now,' he added, 'hopefully we can pull together something that actually happens.' Jeffries has backed the effort in the past, saying in September 2022: 'I have said that I support a stock ban for members of Congress.' But now, amid outcry over Trump's tariff policy, allegations of potential market manipulation and reports of GOP lawmakers making recent trades, the Democratic leader leaned in, hard, on the issue. 'So many of these people are crooks, liars, and frauds. And Marjorie Taylor Greene is, of course, exhibit A,' Jeffries said on MSNBC's 'Inside with Jen Psaki' on Monday, referring to the firebrand Georgia congresswoman reporting buying tens of thousands of dollars in stock the day before and day of Trump's pause in sweeping tariffs — which was followed by a market uptick. 'One, we do need to change the law so that sitting members of Congress cannot trade stock, period. Full stop,' Jeffries continued. 'And until we get to that point, we obviously have to continue to highlight why this is problematic. And if Republicans are unwilling to hold a hearing on this matter, I can assure you Democrats will, on Capitol Hill, in partnership with the Senate. And we also will take this matter on the road.' While the timing of the trades and Trump's statement have spurred outcry from Democrats, no hard evidence has emerged to show individuals acted on insider information. Greene told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that all her financial transactions are made by a financial adviser, and that reporting all the trades gives 'full transparency,' adding: 'I refuse to hide my stock trades in a blind trust like many others do.' Federal law already prohibits members of Congress from acting on insider information, and the STOCK Act signed into law in 2012 required members to report their stock trades within 30 days. But ethics advocates say that law has no teeth — the penalty for violation is a measly $200, and no member has ever been prosecuted for violations — and that it does not solve clear conflict of interest issues. Polls in recent years have found broad public support for banning members from trading stocks, with a poll from the progressive firm Data for Progress finding 70 percent support among surveyed voters in 2022 and the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation finding 86 percent support in 2023. 'It's an ethical kind of cancer on the institution of Congress that they continue to engage in stock trading,' Hedtler-Gaudette said. The biggest action on banning stock trading came last year when the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee last year advanced the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, which would ban members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children from trading stocks. But it did not pass the full Senate, which has since flipped from Democratic to Republican control. Another leading bipartisan proposal to ban congressional stock trading is the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust (TRUST) in Congress Act, which would require not only sitting members themselves but also their spouses and dependents to put certain kinds of investment assets into a blind trust. Lawmakers, led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), reintroduced that bill in January. A spokesperson for Jeffries told The Hill he has been supportive of the TRUST Act and the ETHICS Act, but that he would work with committees of jurisdiction and consult with the broader Democratic caucus on the issue. Republicans, meanwhile, are not shying away from the matter, despite Jeffries trying to tie it to Trump. Roy renewed his effort on Tuesday, taking a swipe at his GOP colleagues to join in. 'It's long past due to end the obvious conflict of interest of members of Congress actively trading stock,' Roy told The Hill in a statement. 'Republicans should stop dithering.' Even the White House has left the door open to such a policy. Asked by The Hill on Tuesday if Trump would support a ban on members of Congress trading stocks, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded: 'I'm certain that's something the president would be interested in looking at.' If any stock trading ban has any realistic shot of getting a vote on the floor in the next two years, though, it will almost certainly need support from Republican leadership. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — who does not own individual stocks, according to his ethics disclosures — has not said much, if anything, on the issue of stock trading by members of Congress. The Speaker, though, is facing some pressure from the right flank of the House GOP to take action on the issue. After Johnson was reelected Speaker in January in a dramatic vote, members of the House Freedom Caucus board who had withheld support for him released a letter saying they expected Johnson to put forward legislation to end stock trading by members of Congress. At the same time, however, Johnson would risk losing support among other House Republicans if he were to move toward such an effort. In January 2022, after then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he may try limiting lawmakers' ability to trade stocks if the GOP won the majority, which it did, the Republican leader faced pushback from a handful of members who slammed the idea. Jeffries's resuscitation of the push to ban congressional stock trading this month marks some of the strongest support from a House leader for the issue in years. 'It would have been nice if he'd come out a bit more vocally and really pushed to try to make it happen when his party controlled the House,' Hedtler-Gaudette said, but he acknowledged that 'there was always the sort of, kind of, the Pelosi element of it all.' Pelosi has drawn the ire of the public and ethics watchdogs over trades that, according to her ethics disclosures, were made by her husband, Paul Pelosi — who holds millions in stocks and options. And in 2021, the then-Speaker scoffed at the idea of banning stock trading for members of Congress when asked about it in a press conference. 'We are a free market economy. They should be able to participate in that,' Nancy Pelosi said. But shortly after that, Pelosi directed Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the then-chair of the House Administration Committee, to draft legislation that would bar lawmakers and their senior staffers from trading individual stocks. Months later in September, Lofgren released the Combating Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act. But it garnered criticism from ethics watchdogs and even from some Democrats for not being stringent enough, and from Republicans for cutting them out of the process. The legislation never made it to the floor: With just days to go until the House was set to break for recess until Election Day, Democratic leadership did not stage a vote on the measure. Pelosi at the time suggested the bill did not have enough support to clear the chamber, telling reporters: 'You have to have the votes to bring it up.' The episode, however, left a sour taste in the mouths of many Democrats. As news reports continue to roll in about eye-catching trades made by members, proponents of banning lawmaker stock trading are mobilizing, hopeful that this Congress will be different for their years-long push. 'Members of Congress and their spouses should be banned from owning or trading stocks, bonds, commodities, futures, or any other form of security – period,' Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) wrote on the social platform X this week. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
House Dems eye stocktrading ban
The deliberate and public push from Jeffries — coming as he accuses Republicans of potential 'stock manipulation' given President Trump's suggestion that it was a 'great time to buy' ahead of his tariff pause — is particularly notable given how his predecessor, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), bristled at the idea. But there is a long way to go before any changes to the law. The push to bar stock trading for members of Congress gained steam in recent years amid reports that lawmakers may have breached laws in place to prevent transactions from being made on insider information, particularly ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, director of government affairs at the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, noted that it is a rare issue that has united hardline conservatives and progressives. 'You would think it would be a potential winner because of those dynamics, but we just haven't seen it make it over the finish line,' Hedtler-Gaudette said. But with what 'Jeffries said now,' he added, 'hopefully we can pull together something that actually happens.'
The Hill
15-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Jeffries gives jolt to stalled congressional stock ban push
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is giving a big boost to the effort to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, an idea that has bipartisan backers in Congress and broad support amongthe public. The deliberate and public push from Jeffries — coming as he accuses Republicans of potential 'stock manipulation' given President Trump's suggestion that it was a 'great time to buy' ahead of his tariff pause — is particularly notable given how his predecessor, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), bristled at the idea. But there is a long way to go before any changes to the law. The push to bar stock trading for members of Congress gained steam in recent years amid reports that lawmakers may have breached laws in place to prevent transactions from being made on insider information, particularly around the COVID-19 pandemic. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, director of government affairs at the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, noted that it is a rare issue that has united hardline conservatives and progressives. 'You would think it would be a potential winner because of those dynamics, but we just haven't seen it make it over the finish line,' Hedtler-Gaudette said. But with what 'Jeffries said now,' he added, 'hopefully we can pull together something that actually happens.' Jeffries has backed the effort in the past, saying in September 2022: 'I have said that I support a stock ban for members of Congress.' But now, amid outcry over Trump's tariff policy, allegations of potential market manipulation and reports of GOP lawmakers making recent trades, the Democratic leader leaned in, hard, on the issue. 'So many of these people are crooks, liars, and frauds. And Marjorie Taylor Greene is, of course, exhibit A,' Jeffries said on MSNBC's 'Inside with Jen Psaki' on Monday, referring to the firebrand Georgia congresswoman reporting buying tens of thousands of dollars in stock the day before and day of Trump's pause in sweeping tariffs — which was followed by a market uptick. 'One, we do need to change the law so that sitting members of Congress cannot trade stock, period. Full stop,' Jeffries continued. 'And until we get to that point, we obviously have to continue to highlight why this is problematic. And if Republicans are unwilling to hold a hearing on this matter, I can assure you Democrats will, on Capitol Hill, in partnership with the Senate. And we also will take this matter on the road.' While the timing of the trades and Trump's statement has spurred outcry from Democrats, no hard evidence has emerged to show individuals acted on insider information. Greene told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that all her financial transitions are made by a financial advisor, and that reporting all the trades gives 'full transparency,' adding: 'I refuse to hide my stock trades in a blind trust like many others do.' Federal law already prohibits members of Congress from acting on insider information, and the STOCK Act signed into law in 2012 required members to report their stock trades within 30 days. But ethics advocates say that law has no teeth — the penalty for violation is a measly $200, and no member has ever been prosecuted for violations — and that it does not solve clear conflict of interest issues. Polls in recent years have found broad public support for banning members from trading stocks, with the progressive Data for Progress poll finding 70 percent support among voters in 2022 and the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation finding 86 percent support in 2023. 'It's an ethical kind of cancer on the institution of Congress that they continue to engage in stock trading,' Hedtler-Gaudette said. The biggest action on banning stock trading came last year when the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee last year advanced the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, which would ban members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from trading stocks. But it did not pass the full Senate, which has since flipped from Democratic to Republican control. Another one of leading bipartisan proposals to ban Congressional stock trading is the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust (TRUST) in Congress Act, which would require not only sitting members themselves but also their spouses and dependents to put certain kinds of investment assets into a blind trust. Lawmakers, led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), reintroduced that bill in January. A spokesperson for Jeffries told The Hill said that he has been supportive of the TRUST Act and the ETHICS Act, but that he would work with committees of jurisdiction and consult with the broader Democratic Caucus on the issue. Republicans, meanwhile, are not shying away from the matter, despite Jeffries trying to tie it to Trump. Roy re-upped his effort on Tuesday, taking a swipe at his GOP colleagues to join in. 'It's long past due to end the obvious conflict of interest of members of Congress actively trading stock,' Roy told The Hill in a statement. 'Republicans should stop dithering.' Even the White House has left the door open to such a policy. Asked by The Hill on Tuesday if Trump would support a ban on members of Congress trading stocks, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded: 'I'm certain that's something the president would be interested in looking at.' If any stock trading ban bill has any realistic shot of getting a vote on the floor in the next two years, though, it will almost certainly need support from Republican leadership. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — who does not own individual stocks, according to his Ethics disclosures — has not said much, if anything, on the issue of stock trading by members of Congress. The Speaker, though, is facing some pressure from the right flank of the House GOP to take action on the issue. After Johnson was reelected Speaker in January in a dramatic vote, members of the House Freedom Caucus board who had withheld support for him released a letter saying they expected Johnson to put forward legislation to end stock trading by members of Congress. At the same time, however, Johnson risks losing support among other House Republicans if he moves toward such an effort. In January 2022, after then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he may try limiting lawmakers' ability to trade stocks if the GOP won the majority, which it did, the Republican leader faced pushback from a handful of members who slammed the idea. Jeffries' resuscitation of the push to ban congressional stock trading this month marks some of the strongest support from a House leader for the issue in years. 'It would have been nice if he'd come out a bit more vocally and really pushed to try to make it happen when his party controlled the House,' Hedtler-Gaudette said, but acknowledged that 'there was always the sort of, kind of, the Pelosi element of it all.' Pelosi has drawn the ire of the public and ethics watchdogs over trades that, according to her ethics disclosures, were made by her husband, Paul Pelosi — who holds millions in stocks and options. And in 2021, the then-Speaker scoffed at the idea of banning stock trading for members of Congress when asked about it in a press conference. 'We are a free market economy. They should be able to participate in that,' Pelosi said. But shortly after that, Pelosi directed Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the then-chair of the House Administration Committee, to draft legislation that would bar lawmakers and their senior staffers from trading individual stocks. Months later in September, Lofgren released the stock trading ban bill, the Combating Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act. But it garnered criticism from ethics watchdogs and even from some Democrats for not being stringent enough, and from Republicans from cutting them out of the process. The legislation never made it to the floor: With just days to go until the House was set to break for recess until Election Day, Democratic leadership did not stage a vote on the measure. Pelosi at the time suggested that the bill did not have enough support to clear the chamber, telling reporters: 'You have to have the votes to bring it up.' The episode, however, left a sour taste in the mouths of many Democrats. As news reports continue to roll in about eye-catching trades made by members, proponents of banning lawmaker stock trading are mobilizing, hopeful that this Congress will be different for their years-long push. 'Members of Congress and their spouses should be banned from owning or trading stocks, bonds, commodities, futures, or any other form of security – period,' Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) wrote on X this week.
