In the early months of President Donald Trump’s second term, accusations of corruption have surfaced with alarming frequency. The allegations range from cryptocurrency schemes to the acceptance of a Qatari jumbo jet, as well as the issuance of pardons to relatives of significant donors. Each incident brings forth significant concerns regarding the misuse of power, foreign influence, and the erosion of democratic principles.
Corruption poses a complex challenge, and defining it clearly is often tricky. It tends to occur in secrecy, complicating direct measurement. Certain corrupt activities may exist within legal boundaries while others clearly transgress the law. The source of corrupt practices varies, originating from both public and private sectors, and often blurring the lines between the two.
Traditionally, the United States was perceived as relatively free from the scourge of corruption. Legislative measures such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, enacted in 1977, positioned the U.S. as a global leader in the fight against corruption. However, even before President Trump’s latest term, the U.S. reputation was beginning to deteriorate amid rising ethical concerns involving the Supreme Court and growing influence of special interests within the political landscape. Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perception Index rated the U.S. at 17th place among 173 countries, with a score of 74 out of 100. By 2024, however, the U.S. slipped to 28th place with a score of 65.
As worrying as these individual instances of corruption are, they reflect a more significant transformation in the nature of corruption at high levels of government. President Trump’s administration exhibits a style of governance where power is concentrated within a single leader. This personalistic approach allows for opportunities that could lead to personal enrichment and decisions driven by individual interests rather than democratic ideals, raising serious concerns about the integrity of political and economic systems.
Corruption manifests in diverse ways, making it essential to categorize its sources. One way to categorize corruption involves four types: influence markets, elite cartels, oligarchs and clans, and official moguls. Each type reflects different political systems and structures enabling or restraining corrupt practices.
Historically, the United States exemplifies influence markets, where political access and power become tradeable commodities. Lobbying practices and campaign contributions, often legal under the First Amendment, illustrate this form of corruption. Though many observers see it as part of an established political system, it continually crowds out the voices of the average citizen and facilitates regulatory capture, where corpulent interests gain undue influence over policy decisions.
In contrast, countries with moderately robust political institutions may exhibit elite cartel corruption. In these scenarios, powerful groups from business, military, and media sectors frequently collude to manipulate government agendas and share the spoils of corruption. Examples of these systems can be seen in countries like South Korea and Italy, where political alliances often lead to widespread corruption in public infrastructure and governance.
Worse still are nations with weak institutions and rapid political transformation, where oligarchs and clans flourish. They rely on violence, bribery, and judicial manipulation to gain dominance. Historical examples include post-Soviet Russia where oligarchs controlled vast sectors of politics and economy, leading to pervasive insecurity and instability.
Another form of corruption, the official mogul, prevails in political systems dominated by a single individual or junta, where personal influence overshadows official authority. This system encourages rampant corruption that benefits the elite but harms overall economic and political development. In highlighting modern instances, leaders like President Vladimir Putin and President Nayib Bukele exemplify how such a system can stifle dissent and undermine democratic checks and balances.
President Trump’s actions, including the issuance of pardons tied to fundraising efforts, raise serious concerns about the blurring lines between official duties and personal interests. For example, he has engaged in business deals linked with foreign entities while serving the broader interests of the American government. His acceptance of a valuable jet from Qatar has prompted discussions about potential undetected conditions that may accompany governmental gifts.
This troubling trend towards a personalistic style of governance raises critical concerns about the growing consolidation of power. Trump has capitalized on his role to foster a structure where loyalty and personal ties triumph over institutional processes, leading to a situation where the norms of democratic governance are increasingly undermined.
Corruption in U.S. history has involved scandals, yet prior incidents typically did not enrich the presidents directly. Noteworthy examples include the Whiskey Ring scandal during President Ulysses Grant’s tenure and the Teapot Dome scandal under President Warren Harding. In recent history, previous presidents faced significant fallout for corruption-related scandals, resulting in either resignation or impeachment. Conversely, President Trump appears insulated from similar repercussions for his actions, which further complicates the fight against corruption at the highest levels of government.
While the broader U.S. governmental structure remains intact, shifts in policy and practice under Trump have led to growing influence of business interests and cultural warriors in political decision-making. Campaign contributions from corporations, often labeled as corruption by citizens, continue unimpeded as political financing, lobbyist influence, and “dark money” permeate the system.
Several systemic challenges lend to the persistence of Trump’s corruption. The expansive influence of well-connected players in lobbyist networks helps maintain the status quo, allowing them to dictate decisions that affect citizens’ lives. Decades of establishing relationships can protect these elite interests from the fallout of a more personal level of corruption. Alongside this, the political landscape’s current trajectory shows signs of slipping toward an illiberal or competitive authoritarian state.
This gradual decline in democratic norms within the U.S. political framework begins showing parallels to countries where leaders exercise personal control, such as Hungary under Viktor Orban. While maintaining semblances of democratic processes, leaders in such systems manipulate electoral outcomes and curtail civil society power to ensure their continued dominance.
The risk of personalistic governance under President Trump not only undermines democratic norms but also exposes the U.S. to foreign influence, where individuals and nations can exploit personal interactions for their gain. Given that personal dealings evade institutional oversight, the capacity for significant foreign interference in U.S. domestic affairs rises correspondingly.
As corruption becomes increasingly ingrained in decision-making, conventional reform strategies focused on institutional improvement may yield limited effects. The historical record indicates that efforts to establish accountability often stall in systems dominated by corrupt leaders. Countries like Hungary have failed to enact necessary reforms despite warnings from international bodies, indicating a stark lack of resolve in tackling corruption.
In the U.S., although strong institutional design exists to counteract corruption, those systems require diligent enforcement by legislative and judicial branches. The delicate balance of executive power outlined in the Constitution finds itself threatened when allies of corrupt leaders abandon their duties to impose checks against potential abuses.
Ultimately, the core of the corruption-related crisis facing the United States transcends mere institutional mechanisms; it is intrinsically political. The reciprocal relationship between corruption and democratic erosion yields formidable challenges against any opposition to presidential misappropriation of authority. Moving forward, it will take focused action from legislative and judicial leaders to confront influences that directly undermine governmental principles, including agencies, universities, and local governments stepping into the void.
In conclusion, while the current state of American political dynamics has not fully collapsed into a singular dictatorship, the future of democracy remains precarious as power consolidates under the guise of personal favor. The risk of prevalent corruption becoming a normalized facet of governance poses serious questions about the sustainability of democratic structures. Sustaining the integrity of U.S. democracy will require a holistic approach involving collective responsibility and resilience against the staggering challenges posed by corruption in leadership.
image source from：foreignaffairs
