public accountability

  • |

    The DEA’s Fentanyl Strategy Was Apparently “Let It Walk”

    ByHugh Jass

    I arrived at the DEA paperwork with a red pen, a flashlight, and the grave suspicion that the document had already tried to leave the room. On August 31, House Oversight requested records about reported decisions to monitor suspected fentanyl shipments without immediately seizing them. The same month, the Justice Department inspector general opened a nationwide review of how the department and DEA handled fentanyl investigations, including risk mitigation, approvals, documentation, and after-action practices. “Do not seize” now appears to be under examination as a tactic, rather than the emergency exception one would hope it was.

    The contradiction is not subtle. Public warnings describe fentanyl as lethal even in tiny amounts. Yet AP’s records-based reporting from New Mexico, covering conduct from 2023 through 2025, described allegations that agents monitored major shipments while pursuing broader cases. Whistleblowers raised concerns about the practice, and the records are now receiving the kind of attention usually reserved for a filing cabinet that has started sweating. These are reported allegations under active scrutiny, not a final finding that every shipment reached a community or caused a particular harm.

    The institutional theory seems to be that a larger future prosecution may justify allowing an immediate danger to keep moving. This is the sort of reasoning that sounds impressive in a conference room because the conference room is not located along the shipment’s route. Somewhere, an eventual indictment receives a protective escort while ordinary people receive the present-tense risk, apparently because the paperwork has decided tomorrow is more important than today.

    The inspector general’s review is ongoing, so nobody should pre-write its conclusion. But the questions are already sitting on the desk: Who approved the monitoring? What safeguards were required? How was the risk documented? What happened afterward? A public agency does not get to call fentanyl deadly in its warnings and then treat a major shipment like evidence with a forwarding address without explaining the arithmetic.

    My preliminary audit finding is that the narcotics had an address, the risk had a deadline, and accountability was listed as “pending.” A larger case can be valuable, but it is not automatically worth asking communities to absorb the danger while investigators preserve the possibility of a better headline. The country deserves an enforcement strategy that protects people first and files the explanation before the next box starts moving.

  • |

    Public Science, Private Billions, and the Invoice We Get Twice

    ByJustin Jest

    America’s favorite business plan is simple: the public pays for the research, infrastructure, and risk, then a private logo appears on the future with a checkout button attached. The internet, GPS, medicine, and space all become props in the same billionaire magic trick: public money builds the runway, private capital claims the plane, and ordinary people are told access is a premium experience. Somewhere, a newsroom raccoon is incorporating the lunch before selling it back by the sandwich.

    The problem is not that companies make useful things. The problem is treating taxpayer-funded breakthroughs as a free launchpad for private fortunes while the people who financed the launch become repeat customers. Public money, public lab, company formed, shares sold, billionaire wealth, public bill: that is not innovation policy so much as a tollbooth wearing a lab coat. If the public carries the risk, public value should not be an optional upgrade. We funded the runway; we are not trespassers on the plane.

  • |

    When Power Has a Cover Charge

    ByPhil McCracken

    I followed the invoice into Washington’s VIP room, where a few lobbyists and big donors can treat public power like a discount membership club: campaign cash at the desk, favors in the coat check, and the pen available by appointment. The access economy calls this efficiency. That is a lovely word for keeping the customer list short.

    Millions of ordinary people are less convenient. They ask questions, remember promises, compare receipts, and refuse to fit neatly inside a catered meeting. Broad participation does not make corruption impossible, but it makes concentrated influence harder to purchase quietly and harder to disguise as public service. The money trail wore cologne until the whole country walked into the room. Suddenly, democracy had an invoice nobody could quietly expense.

  • |

    Grand Nagus Trump Has a Simple Business Plan: You Fund the War, the Family Gets the Invoice

    ByJustin Jest

    Donald J. Trump enters the Ferengi-style Grand Nagus fantasy with a business plan written in gold ink: wrap war in patriotic branding, send the bill to the public, and treat public office like a family deal desk. The poster’s accusation is deliberately absurd, but its civic target is painfully familiar—the billionaire belief that government is just another company where the people provide the capital and the boss keeps the upside.

    Run the newsroom-raccoon audit: Who pays? Taxpayers. Who is told to salute, sacrifice, and stop asking questions? Everyone outside the executive suite. Who gets to call the arrangement “good business”? The self-appointed dealmaker. In this edition of the Rules of Acquisition, citizens are not constituents but a financing department with flags, soldiers become ceremony, and accountability is dismissed as bad negotiating. Government is supposed to serve the public, not operate as a private invoice machine. Taxpayers get the invoice, soldiers get the ceremony, and the Grand Nagus gets the frequent-flyer miles.

  • |

    OPM Cut 35% of Its Staff and Kept Adding Responsibilities

    ByHugh Jass

    The federal government has apparently labeled OPM’s 35 percent workforce reduction “efficiency,” a word that entered the records room, looked around, and refused to identify the remaining personnel. According to a July 20 Government Accountability Office report, the Office of Personnel Management eliminated 10 offices while cutting its headcount. The package was delivered to the agency responsible for human resources after many of the humans had been removed from the premises.

    GAO also found that 57 percent of departing OPM employees had at least 11 years of service. That is not merely a staffing change; that is institutional memory wheeling its suitcase toward the exit. These were the people who knew which form was obsolete, which process had three hidden steps, and which drawer contained the original drawer map.

    Meanwhile, the report describes OPM contemplating additional responsibilities, including handling more employee appeals and expanding work involving artificial intelligence and information-technology modernization. The contradiction is not that modernization exists. Modernization is useful. The contradiction is asking a smaller workforce to carry a larger filing cabinet while describing the missing hands as a strategic improvement.

    As Hugh Jass, I examined the paperwork under a lamp normally reserved for suspicious procurement documents. Exhibit A had a pulse: fewer employees, fewer offices, and a greater menu of assignments. No one should claim the report proves that these cuts directly caused a particular service failure. But it does document a capacity problem hiding in plain bureaucratic language. “Do more with less” is often just a management memo discovering arithmetic for the first time.

    The missing personnel have now been filed under “strategic efficiency,” a classification broad enough to contain an empty desk, a delayed appeal, and an entire generation of procedural knowledge. Ordinary federal workers and the people waiting on those systems deserve better than a government that treats experience as clutter and responsibility as an expandable field. Somewhere in OPM, a form is still looking for the staff member who knows where to send it.

  • |

    Only His Credit’s Up

    ByJustin Jest

    “Factory construction is up” is the kind of sentence you say into a microphone right before reality starts yelling back. The claim wears a brave little grin, and then the monthly spending line goes down, down, down—so the whole thing gets stamped FALSE like a parking ticket for narrative lawbreaking. This is what happens when campaign power treats numbers like optional background music and assumes workers will applaud the key change anyway.

    The funniest part isn’t even the mismatch; it’s the credit laundering. If there was an earlier surge—allegedly under Biden in 2023—the system still tries to bill the current guy for the improvement, because in billionaire-candidate logic the only trend that matters is “my name goes on it.” Reality doesn’t have to cooperate. It just has to keep being inconvenient.

  • DOL’s “Common Interest” Shuffle: 48 Agreements, 13 Reviewed, 8 Recommendations, Still No Tracking

    ByHugh Jass

    I have seen many things in my line of work, but the particular haunt of this one is “common interest.” The Department of Labor calls these agreements a lawful way to share confidential information—then, in an Inspector General audit, DOL’s own paperwork starts acting like it’s allergic to accountability.

    The audit is OIG Report 09-26-001-08-001, issued June 30, 2026. It focused on a defined period (Jan. 1, 2023, through June 30, 2025) and looked at “common interest agreements” used across DOL components—specifically identifying 48 agreements in that window, with seven tied to EBSA and forty-one tied to the Wage and Hour Division.

    From those 48, the OIG reviewed a sample of 13, using an explicit compile-then-select approach—part random, part judgmental selection. That’s the kind of methodology you can show auditors, managers, and, if necessary, a judge: “We didn’t just guess.” Yet the findings read less like “we found a few bad apples” and more like “we never built the basket that tells you how many apples exist.”

    According to the OIG, DOL lacked sufficient formal policies or procedures, had weak internal coordination, and—most crucially for anyone who wants oversight beyond vibes—did not have adequate tracking mechanisms to determine, with confidence, how many agreements existed across the relevant universe. And then the plot twist: DOL agreed to all eight recommendations aimed at fixing the control and accountability gaps.

    So here’s the human stake, in plain language. EBSA and WHD exist to enforce worker protections, not to play administrative hide-and-seek with sensitive information-sharing arrangements. When the watchdog says the filing system can’t reliably tell you what’s in the folder, that’s not a theoretical problem—it’s the enforcement equivalent of being asked to prove a negative. The paperwork can reproduce; the tracking can’t. The document coughed; Exhibit A had a pulse; and still the agency’s answer was “trust us, we’ll improve.”

  • |

    They Want Your Vote, Not Your Invoice

    ByPhil McCracken

    I’m standing in TRUMP TOWER, watching the crowd chant “TRUMP SAVES AMERICA” like that’s a membership fee. Then the offer slides in: the future is MEMBERS ONLY, tucked on the TOP FLOOR with SPECIAL TREATMENT and NO WORK REQUIRED—and I’m just the tired constituent holding the receipt like, “They respect me?”

    Sure, the pitch comes wrapped in “we’re fighting for us,” but the billing arrives for “your anger” in their business model. When they cash in on your frustration, why do you keep calling it leadership?

  • |

    The Bill Is Public, the Rewards Are Private

    ByJustin Jest

    “STEP 3: BUILD A $1.776 BILLION PAYOUT MACHINE.” “TAXPAYER FUNDED.” The whole thing reads like a service desk script: citizenship is the cover charge, and the menu starts with “FRIENDS LINE UP FIRST.” Follow the flow labeled “PUBLIC MONEY, PRIVATE LOYALTY” and you’ll see who gets the “WEAPONIZATION FUND” feeling and who gets politely billed for it.

    And then the sign-off hits like business terms disguised as public policy: “THE BILL IS PUBLIC. THE REWARDS ARE PRIVATE.” So no, you don’t need to prove a grand conspiracy—just notice the wiring is honest about being private-first. Meanwhile, the newsroom raccoon files the same story under “access is the product,” and the bill keeps coming.

  • |

    Lex Luthor Government: The Lawsuit That Billed Us

    ByMike Rotch

    In “Lex Luthor government,” accountability comes in armor-plated paperwork: Step 1 sue the taxpayers for $10 billion. Step 2 “settle” with your own DOJ. Step 3 create a $1.776 billion “weaponization” fund. Step 4 let allies line up for payouts. Step 5 block IRS audits of your family’s past returns. Step 6 call it justice. Trump gets a formal apology, a past-IRS-audit shield, and the political payout machine—while taxpayers get “the bill,” higher costs, weaker democracy, and zero accountability.

    He didn’t drain the swamp. He filed paperwork to own it—he sued the country, settled with himself, and sent the invoice to us.

End of content

End of content