“Power corrupts” may be an antiquated cliche, but nowhere has it become more relevant in the past few years than the United States. We’ve seen allegations of self-enrichment and corruption across all branches of government. This is certainly not a brand new phenomenon; history buffs will remind you of the Yazoo Land Fraud of 1795 or William Duer—a member of Alexander Hamilton’s inner circle—leveraging insider knowledge of debt assumption plans to speculate in government securities and bringing about the Panic of 1792.
Why, then, does it seem like the public is only just becoming aware of the corruption rife in our government? The massive advances in communication and information technology may be partially responsible, but assuming that this epidemic of self-dealing is due solely to observation bias would be both incorrect and imprudent. We cannot cure this democratic illness if we deny its existence. While ensuring that absolutely zero self-dealing ever occurs may be a Sisyphean task, that cannot be an excuse for permitting widespread corrupt practices that only further the dissonance between American citizens and the elected officials that claim to represent their interests.
In an effort to stay apprised of these corrupt practices, we’ve created a comprehensive tracker below that examines the Second Trump Administration and all documented instances of self-dealing. We note that many of these are allegations and, for legal purposes, we do not make any claims as to their veracity.
Federal Integrity Tracker
Private financial interests, potential self-dealing, procurement relationships and oversight safeguards during the second Trump administration (January 20, 2025–present).
Search the evidence
Sort by subject or date, filter by reporting category or agency. Select “Read case details” for documented conduct, unresolved questions, relevant responses, and links. Use “Tagged parties” to view connected records; a tag identifies an association, not proof of wrongdoing. The financial total above refers to the full dataset, not the filtered selection.
| Reference | Tagged parties | Evidence classification | Findings & responses | Source material |
|---|
Amount methodology: “Amount gained” shows reported gross receipts, firm-level contract amounts, or “Not established” with an explicit qualification. These figures are not proven personal profit. Alleged total amount: $28.007 billion* — * Arithmetic sum of 23 dollar-denominated entries (out of 44), using the lower endpoint of ranges and stated values for approximate figures. Includes gross revenue, proposed venture value, loan principal, contract face values, pre-service compensation, asset holdings, stock sales, project pledges, fund size, contested overpayment estimates, and the $10 billion damages demand. This is NOT proven or alleged personal gain, money paid, corruption proceeds, or a nonduplicated loss to taxpayers. Proposed, unpaid, contested, and overlapping figures are included, and actual amounts may differ. Context and case-specific evidence must be provided whenever this figure is used. A missing amount means unknown, not zero.
What this audit covers
This matrix describes evidence found in the reviewed sources; it does not certify that every employee, contract, grant, enforcement matter or financial filing at each agency has been independently audited.
“No independent case verified” means no specific report entered in this edition, not a clean bill of health or proof of misconduct.
Methodology and publication cautions
Alleged total amount: $28.007 billion* * Arithmetic sum of 23 dollar-denominated entries (out of 44), using the lower endpoint of ranges and stated values for approximate figures. Includes gross revenue, proposed venture value, loan principal, contract face values, pre-service compensation, asset holdings, stock sales, project pledges, fund size, contested overpayment estimates, and the $10 billion damages demand. This is NOT proven or alleged personal gain, money paid, corruption proceeds, or a nonduplicated loss to taxpayers. Proposed, unpaid, contested, and overlapping figures are included, and actual amounts may differ. Context and case-specific evidence must be provided whenever this figure is used.
Inclusion rules
- Underlying events must be supported by identifiable documentation, a court record, credible investigative reporting or public financial disclosures.
- Allegations must describe specific conduct with corroboration; unsupported speculation is excluded.
- Preserve official responses and later contradictory evidence.
- Keep evidence strength distinct from legal adjudication and enforcement outcomes.
- Aggregate studies are flagged as reference datasets, not converted into hundreds of individual corruption findings.
Important limitations
- This is a researcher-curated cross-government review, not a financial or forensic audit and not a full item-by-item review of all 1,607 appointees’ disclosures.
- Some cases rely on a single detailed investigation; these require further primary-file validation before use as definitive legal findings.
- Agency listing is not exhaustive; privacy, redactions and withheld contracts limit complete ownership analysis.
- One transaction may affect multiple agencies; records may overlap and cannot be summed into an administration total.
- “No known prosecution” is neither exoneration nor proof of improper suppression. A court holding about notice does not establish self-enrichment.
Verification resources
ProPublica financial-disclosure collection · Public Citizen affiliations · Public Citizen federal corporate enforcement · USAspending · U.S. Office of Government Ethics · SEC EDGAR · FEC data.
Corrections and maintenance
Each record includes a research date (October 21, 2026). Update the public copy when new rulings, disclosures, recusal memos, corrections, denials or transactional outcomes appear. The event summary is not a judicial determination. For ongoing compliance, seek legal editorial review before describing an unresolved accusation as a violation.