Shutdown Deal Undermines Food Safety Regulations Amid Lobbying

A recent government funding deal has resulted in the elimination of crucial food safety regulations, directly benefiting corporations that lobbied extensively for these changes. Senators included amendments in the emergency spending bill that dismantle protections against food contamination, placing public health at risk while allowing large food corporations to operate with less oversight.

The rollback of these food contamination rules follows a significant influx of campaign contributions linked to lobbyists representing food and beverage industries. This move puts at stake the safety and well-being of consumers, highlighting how corporate influence undermines public health policies. The changes come at a time when foodborne illnesses are already a pressing concern across the nation.

Additionally, the bill restricts research and regulatory authority on ultraprocessed foods, despite widespread acknowledgment of their negative health effects. This stands in stark contrast to the goals of the “Make America Healthy Again Movement,” a platform promoted by Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seemingly disregarding public health objectives for political expediency.

The decision reflects a broader pattern in the Trump administration’s approach to governance, where corporate interests take precedence over protecting citizens. It serves as a troubling reminder of how the current political landscape prioritizes financial gain for a few over the health and safety of the many.

As the administration continues to outmaneuver necessary regulations, citizens are left to bear the consequences of a system swayed by lobbyists and financial contributions, with food safety becoming yet another casualty in the quest for corporate profit.

Trump Launches Wine Brand at Coast Guard Stores Raising Ethics

Donald Trump has launched a line of wine and cider now available at Coast Guard-run stores in Washington, D.C., and Virginia, raising fresh ethical questions surrounding the First Family’s business dealings. These exchanges offer tax-free shopping to military members and their families, showcasing Trump’s products prominently. The revelation emerged from an anonymous whistleblower identified as a Homeland Security employee, who shared photographic evidence on social media.

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin confirmed that the Trump products are indeed being sold at these stores, stating that “the brave men and women of the USCG are pleased to be able to buy Trump wine and cider tax-free.” However, this situation invites criticism regarding the appropriateness of military exchanges selling goods associated with a sitting president, potentially undermining the perceived neutrality of military institutions.

Jordan Libowitz from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington remarked that while there might not be any legal violation, the ethical implications are concerning. He emphasized that military establishments should refrain from appearing to endorse a particular administration’s commercial interests, raising the question of whether similar offerings will support future presidents.

Trump, who is well-known for his extensive range of branded products despite being a lifelong non-drinker, has seen his wine business valued at approximately $44 million. This decision appears to exploit his position as president to enhance his already vast financial portfolio, further exemplifying his inclination to merge personal business interests with political power.

Moreover, Trump’s business practices continue to draw scrutiny, especially given his family’s substantial income derived from various ventures, including cryptocurrency. As this unsavory connection between business interests and presidential power unfolds, it serves to highlight Trump’s persistent strategy of utilizing his office for financial gain, as underscored by his past promises to avoid exploiting the presidency for personal profit.

Trump Misleads on Walmart Thanksgiving Meal to Manipulate Economy Narrative

In a recent attempt to bolster his economic narrative, Donald Trump highlighted Walmart’s Thanksgiving meal as being cheaper this year compared to last, conveniently ignoring that the new package contains significantly fewer items. Despite claiming a 25% reduction in cost, the 2025 meal bundle lacks crucial components that were included in the previous year’s offering, evidencing a disingenuous portrayal of economic success.

Trump’s repeated assertions of a “golden age” for the economy fell flat, especially after the GOP’s disappointing performance in the elections. He has resorted to using Walmart’s claims as a talking point, even though the 2025 bundle consists of only 23 items compared to the 29 provided in 2024. This selective presentation of facts undermines his credibility and highlights a troubling pattern of misinformation.

During a series of statements, Trump attempted to frame the affordability of the Thanksgiving meal as a Republican success, urging party members to capitalize on this narrative. However, the reality shows rising food prices across the board, contrary to his claims. An October Consumer Price Index report indicates that while food costs have slowed, essential items remain expensive, contradicting Trump’s insistence on an economic miracle under his presidency.

The White House’s promotion of the Walmart bundle served as an attempt to distract from the broader economic issues facing American families. While Trump portrays himself as a champion of affordability, polls indicate that a mere 34% of voters feel he has met their expectations regarding the economy. This disconnect raises serious questions about his ability to genuinely address the economic hardships many are experiencing.

Ultimately, Trump’s messaging around Walmart’s Thanksgiving meal reflects a troubling tendency to manipulate data for political gain. Rather than providing real solutions to the cost-of-living crisis, he resorts to superficial statistics, demonstrating an alarming disregard for the true economic challenges facing the nation.

Trump’s Dismissal of FTC Commissioners Signals Dangerous Shift towards Authoritarian Control

Donald Trump has unilaterally dismissed the only two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), confirming the partisan control he seeks over independent regulatory agencies. The fired commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, both declared their terminations were illegal and indicative of Trump’s attempts to stifle opposition. Bedoya took to social media to express that his removal signifies Trump’s desire to transform the FTC into an agency that serves his interests rather than the public good.

Slaughter echoed these sentiments, asserting that the President’s decision undermines the integrity of the FTC, which was established to combat corporate misconduct. She emphasized the importance of independent voices in holding powerful corporations accountable and argued that this action reflects a broader trend of Trump’s administration toward authoritarianism and power consolidation.

This unconstitutional move raises serious concerns about the future of consumer protection in the United States. With Trump’s recent appointment of Andrew Ferguson, who has openly disparaged consumer protections, there is a clear intent to dismantle the safeguards designed to protect the public from corporate abuses. This development not only threatens the regulatory independence of the FTC but also endangers the very foundations of accountability within the government.

The implications of these firings are far-reaching, as they signify a deliberate effort by Trump to eliminate dissent within regulatory agencies. By removing key opposition figures from the FTC, Trump aims to silence scrutiny and shield his administration from accountability regarding corporate malfeasance. This move is a part of a larger strategy that aligns with Trump’s abhorrent approach to governance, which prioritizes loyalty to the President over the rights and well-being of American citizens.

As these events unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that the Trump administration is committed to eroding democratic standards and enabling unchecked corporate power. The dismissal of Bedoya and Slaughter marks another step in a worrying trend of authoritarian governance that directly threatens American democracy and the principles of fair regulation established by independent agencies.

(h/t: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/trump-fires-ftc-commissioners)

Trump’s GOP Targets Nursing Home Care Standards for Corporate Profits

Donald Trump and the Republican Party are gearing up to dismantle critical nursing home staffing regulations put forth by the Biden administration, a move that primarily benefits the for-profit home industry while endangering the welfare of residents and workers. This proposed repeal comes in the wake of overwhelming evidence that inadequate staffing led to the deaths of over 200,000 nursing home residents during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the urgent need for minimum care standards.

The Biden administration’s rule mandated that nursing homes provide at least 3.48 hours of nursing care per resident daily, including essential oversight by registered nurses. This regulation is crucial to ensuring that residents receive appropriate medical attention and care. Yet, Republicans, led by figures like Senator Bill Cassidy, have criticized it, claiming it exacerbates workforce shortages rather than addressing them.

As GOP lawmakers introduce resolutions to overturn this rule, they falsely present their agenda as a means to protect seniors. However, the truth is that repealing these regulations will revert care standards back to a time when profit margins were prioritized over patient care, a clear indication of the party’s alignment with corporate interests rather than the needs of vulnerable populations.

Industry groups have rallied against the staffing requirements, arguing they are unrealistic and costly. However, research and advocates stress that minimum staffing standards are not only feasible but critical for improving care quality across the board. This pushback from the nursing home industry, which predominantly comprises for-profit facilities, reveals a blatant disregard for the lives at stake.

Consumer advocates and public health experts are urging Congress to reject any efforts to roll back these essential protections. The proposed repeal represents a clear shift toward a profit-driven model that undermines the health and safety of nursing home residents, reflecting the GOP’s broader agenda of catering to corporate elites at the expense of American democracy and social welfare.

(h/t: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-gop-expected-undo-biden-110000447.html)

Trump’s FTC Appointment Raises Red Flags for Consumer Protection

Donald Trump has appointed Andrew Ferguson to lead the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a move that raises serious concerns about the integrity of the agency. Ferguson, known for his extreme views, has previously expressed disdain for consumer protections, suggesting he could dismantle critical regulations designed to protect the public from corporate abuses.

This decision is part of Trump’s ongoing effort to stack federal agencies with loyalists who prioritize the interests of big business over the American people. Critics warn that Ferguson’s leadership could lead to a significant rollback of protections that prevent monopolistic practices and price gouging, ultimately hurting consumers.

Ferguson’s appointment aligns with Trump’s broader agenda of undermining regulatory frameworks that hold corporations accountable. This strategy reflects a disregard for ethical governance and a blatant favoring of corporate interests, raising alarms regarding potential corruption and conflicts of interest within the administration.

Moreover, Trump’s ongoing legal troubles, including various federal indictments, amplify the urgency of this appointment. While Ferguson’s priorities may align with Trump’s desire to avoid accountability, the implications for consumer rights and fair competition could be dire.

As Trump continues to manipulate federal positions to serve his agenda, the FTC’s mission to protect consumers and maintain fair competition is in jeopardy. The public must remain vigilant against these unethical maneuvers that prioritize profit over people.

(h/t: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/technology/trump-ftc-andrew-ferguson.html)

Betsy DeVos sued for allegedly refusing to follow court order

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is being sued for refusing to follow a judge’s order to implement Obama-era regulations. The lawsuit claims DeVos was required to “discharge,” or stop collecting on loans of students who attended for-profit schools and colleges if the institution or their campus had shut down, as The Hill reports.

“It has been nearly two years since these rules should have taken effect, and Secretary DeVos is still dragging her feet and hurting tens of thousands of borrowers through her inaction,” National Student Legal Defense Network (NSLDN) President Aaron Ament said in a statement.

“The students we are trying to help have been doubly victimized – first by the for-profit colleges that deceived them, and now by the federal government that refuses to help.”

The lawsuit says the Education Dept. continues to collect on debts the students should not owe.

The Hill adds that a federal court in October “ruled that the Obama-era debt regulations had to be implemented after over a year of delays by DeVos.”

The Washington Post notes that Secretary DeVos “said that the rule made it too easy for students to cancel their debts and that she intended to replace it with her own version to take effect next year.”

In August the LA Times Editorial Board charged that DeVos “sides with predatory for-profit colleges over America’s students.”

[Raw Story]

DeVos prepping new rules on sexual misconduct standards for campuses

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is formulating new policies regarding how universities handle sexual assault and harassment cases.

The new rules would increase protections for students accused of sexual misconduct, reduce liability for colleges and universities and encourage schools to broaden their support networks for victims, according to The New York Times.

The rules would reportedly limit accountability for schools to complaints that happened on campus and were filed through proper authorities. They would also raise the bar legally for proving a school mishandled a complaint, according to the Times.

The move comes while multiple universities are facing allegations that staff members failed to properly act when made aware of sexual misconduct.

“We are in the midst of a deliberative process. Any information the New York Times claims to have is premature and speculative, and therefore we have no comment.” Liz Hill, press secretary for the Department of Education, told The Hill in a statement.

Last year, DeVos rescinded Obama-era guidelines for universities handling sexual assault complaints. Rescinding the requirements did not have the force of law, while the new rules would, according to the Times.

The move comes while multiple universities are facing allegations that staff members failed to properly act when made aware of sexual misconduct.

“We are in the midst of a deliberative process. Any information the New York Times claims to have is premature and speculative, and therefore we have no comment.” Liz Hill, press secretary for the Department of Education, told The Hill in a statement.

Last year, DeVos rescinded Obama-era guidelinesfor universities handling sexual assault complaints. Rescinding the requirements did not have the force of law, while the new rules would, according to the Times.

DeVos claimed the guidelines represented federal overreach.

“The truth is that the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students,” she said at the time. “Survivors, victims of a lack of due process and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved.”

[The Hill]

Student Loan Watchdog Quits; Blames Trump Administration

The federal official in charge of protecting student borrowers from predatory lending practices has stepped down.

In a scathing resignation letter, Seth Frotman, who until now was the student loan ombudsman at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, says current leadership “has turned its back on young people and their financial futures.” The letter was addressed to Mick Mulvaney, the bureau’s acting director.

In the letter, obtained by NPR, Frotman accuses Mulvaney and the Trump administration of undermining the CFPB and its ability to protect student borrowers.

“Unfortunately, under your leadership, the Bureau has abandoned the very consumers it is tasked by Congress with protecting,” it read. “Instead, you have used the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America.”

The letter raises serious questions about the federal government’s willingness to oversee the $1.5 trillion student loan industry and to protect student borrowers.

Frotman has served as student loan ombudsman for the past three years. Congress created the position in 2010, in the wake of the financial crisis, as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As ombudsman and assistant director, Frotman oversaw the CFPB’s Office for Students and Young Consumers and reviewed thousands of complaints from student borrowers about the questionable practices of private lenders, loan servicers and debt collectors.

Since 2011, the CFPB has handled more than 60,000 student loan complaints and, through its investigations and enforcement actions, returned more than $750 million to aggrieved borrowers. Frotman’s office was central to those efforts. It also played a role in lawsuits against for-profit giants ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges and the student loan company Navient.

Over the past year, the Trump administration has increasingly sidelined the CFPB’s student loan office. Last August, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would stop sharing information with the bureau about the department’s oversight of federal student loans, calling the CFPB “overreaching and unaccountable” and arguing that the bureau’s actions were confusing borrowers and loan servicers alike. Of the move, Frotman writes, “the Bureau’s current leadership folded to political pressure … and failed borrowers who depend on independent oversight to halt bad practices.”

In May, Mulvaney called for a major shake-up in Frotman’s division. The Office for Students and Young Consumers would be folded into the bureau’s financial education office, signaling a symbolic shift in mission from investigation to information-sharing. While the CFPB told NPR at the time that the move was “a very modest organizational chart change,” consumer advocates reacted with alarm.

Christopher Peterson, director of financial services at the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America, called the move “an appalling step in a longer march toward the elimination of meaningful American consumer protection law.”

In his resignation, Frotman also accuses the CFPB’s leadership of suppressing a report, prepared by his office, revealing new evidence that some of the nation’s largest banks were “saddling [students] with legally dubious account fees.”

The Trump administration has also taken steps outside the CFPB to curb oversight of the student loan industry. The Justice and Education departments have argued that debt collectors should be protected from state efforts to regulate them. And, earlier this month, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos moved to scrap a rule meant to punish schools where graduates struggle with poor earnings and deep debt. The department defended its decision, saying it would instead give borrowers school performance data so they can decide for themselves what colleges offer the best value.

Mick Mulvaney was tapped to run the CFPB while also serving as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Before joining the Trump administration, he was a Republican congressman from South Carolina and a fierce critic of the bureau he now manages. He once called the CFPB “a joke … in a sick, sad kind of way” because, Mulvaney argued, it often acted above the law with no accountability to Congress.

Frotman has served at the CFPB for seven years, since its inception. He arrived in early 2011 as part of the Treasury Department’s implementation team. Frotman began in the Office of Servicemember Affairs as senior adviser to Holly Petraeus. That office was instrumental in expanding service member protections under the Military Lending Act and in cracking down on lenders and retailers that preyed on service members.

Petraeus, now retired, tells NPR she felt “privileged” to have worked with Frotman at the CFPB. “Seth is a true public servant. I think he’s leaving for the purest of motives: He wants to help student borrowers.”

In response to a request for comment, the CFPB issued this statement: “The Bureau does not comment on specific personnel matters. We hope that all of our departing employees find fulfillment in other pursuits and we thank them for their service.”

[NPR]

 

DeVos ends Obama-era protections for students of for-profit colleges

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos moved Friday to end rules passed under the Obama administration that penalized for-profit colleges with a record of leaving graduates in crippling debt and with few job prospects.

In a statement that appeared on the Education Department’s website on Friday, the agency claimed the move was born out of an effort to treat all types of institutions “fairly.”

“Students deserve useful and relevant data when making important decisions about their education post-high school,” DeVos wrote in the statement.

“That’s why instead of targeting schools simply by their tax status, this administration is working to ensure students have transparent, meaningful information about all colleges and all programs. Our new approach will aid students across all sectors of higher education and improve accountability.”

The agency is now seeking public comment on whether or not the Department of Education should require institutions to disclose publicly whether their programs are accredited as well as their program graduation rates and costs.

After the 30-day comment period, the Obama-era rule is set to be reversed on July 1, 2019.

DeVos’ plan to roll back the gainful employment rule was first reported last month. At that time, the agency refused to comment on the proposal until its completion and publication.

DeVos has taken a number of steps to roll back other Obama-era rules targeting for-profit colleges, including dismantling a team dedicated to uncovering fraud at such institutions and reinstating a for-profit college accreditor despite her own staff’s warnings that the organization did not meet federal standards.

1 2 3