Justin Elliott

Virtually every day, Democratic lawmakers write the Trump Administration demanding answers on a range of issues. And every day they are met with the sounds of silence.

The recent unanswered letters include: a request from senators asking for details on Jared Kushner’s conflicts of interest; another asking how agencies will implement Trump-ordered changes to Obamacare; and a third asking for details on officials the administration has quietly installed in so-called beachhead teams across the government. A recent, informal audit by Rep John Sarbanes (D-MD) found 100 letters that went unanswered as of mid-March, though not all of them made clear requests for information. “These findings confirm what many feared: The Trump Administration has little regard for transparent government,” Rep Sarbanes said. A Rep Sarbanes spokesman said the audit found just a small handful of letters that did receive responses, such as one sent to the Federal Railroad Administration and another related to a pipeline issue. The reasons for the lack of responses aren’t clear.

While President Donald Trump has not moved to fill many jobs that require Senate confirmation, he has quietly installed hundreds of officials to serve as his eyes and ears at every major federal agency, from the Pentagon to the Department of Interior. Unlike appointees exposed to the scrutiny of the Senate, members of these so-called “beachhead teams” have operated largely in the shadows, with the White House declining to publicly reveal their identities. While some names have previously dribbled out in the press, we are publishing a list of more than 400 hires, providing the most complete accounting so far of who Trump has brought into the federal government. Here is a run-down of some of the Trump hires:

Curtis Ellis was a columnist for WorldNetDaily, a website best known for its enthusiastic embrace of the false notion that President Obama was born outside the United States. Ellis was hired Jan. 20 as a special assistant to the secretary at the Labor Department. Asked about his role in a brief phone interview, he said: “Nothing I can tell you.”
Jon Perdue, a self-described guerrilla warfare expert and fellow at a little-known security think tank, wrote a book called “The War of All the People: The Nexus of Latin American Radicalism and Middle Eastern Terrorism.” He is also a onetime contributor to Breitbart. Perdue was hired as a special assistant at the Treasury Department.

If the government ends up approving the $85 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, credit won’t necessarily belong to the executives, bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists pushing for the deal. More likely, it will be due to the professors. A serial acquirer, AT&T must persuade the government to allow every major deal. Again and again, the company has relied on economists from America’s top universities to make its case before the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission. Moonlighting for a consulting firm named Compass Lexecon, they represented AT&T when it bought Centennial, DirecTV, and Leap Wireless; and when it tried unsuccessfully to absorb T-Mobile. And now AT&T and Time Warner have hired three top Compass Lexecon economists to counter criticism that the giant deal would harm consumers and concentrate too much media power in one company.

Economists who specialize in antitrust — affiliated with Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, the University of California, Berkeley, and other prestigious universities — reshaped their field through scholarly work showing that mergers create efficiencies of scale that benefit consumers. But they reap their most lucrative paydays by lending their academic authority to mergers their corporate clients propose. Corporate lawyers hire them from Compass Lexecon and half a dozen other firms to sway the government by documenting that a merger won’t be “anti-competitive”: in other words, that it won’t raise retail prices, stifle innovation, or restrict product offerings. Their optimistic forecasts, though, often turn out to be wrong, and the mergers they champion may be hurting the economy.

An amendment adopted by a House committee would, if enacted, take a step toward removing the National Security Agency from the business of meddling with encryption standards that protect security on the Internet.

The amendment adopted by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology would remove an existing requirement in the law that National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) consult with the NSA on encryption standards.

The amendment’s sponsor, Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL), quoted our story on the NSA from 2013. “NIST, which falls solely under the jurisdiction of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has been given ‘the mission of developing standards, guidelines, and associated methods and techniques for information systems,’” Rep Grayson wrote. “To violate that charge in a manner that would deliberately lessen standards, and willfully diminish American citizens’ and businesses’ cyber-security, is appalling and warrants a stern response by this Committee.”

Rep Grayson’s amendment, which is part of a bill that funds NIST, was approved by a voice vote.