What policy or legal reforms have been proposed to prevent corruption like that alleged during the Trump presidency?
Executive summary
Proposals to prevent the kinds of conflicts, influence-peddling and regulatory rollbacks alleged during the Trump administrations fall into three broad categories: stronger conflict-of-interest and divestiture rules for presidents and appointees; statutory curbs on pardons, interference and agency removals; and stepped-up transparency and enforcement tools such as the Corporate Transparency Act and robust FCPA enforcement (sources describe weaknesses and calls for reform) [1] [2] [3]. Advocates including House Democrats, CREW, and some senators argue for congressional reforms because executive actions like pausing FCPA enforcement and firing inspectors general have exposed enforcement gaps [4] [5] [2].
1. Strengthen presidential conflict-of-interest rules and mandatory divestiture
Critics say the core problem was a president who did not divest and therefore created thousands of direct conflicts that invited pay-to-play behavior; their reform prescription is statutory obligations requiring presidents and close family to divest assets or place them in true blind trusts before taking office, and stronger post-employment and emoluments enforcement mechanisms to deter profiteering (CREW’s tracking of “almost 4,000 conflicts” under Trump frames this need) [1]. CREW and Oversight Committee Democrats explicitly link non‑divestiture and visits to president-owned properties with corruption and call for laws to close that loophole [1] [6]. Opposing views are not detailed in the supplied reporting; available sources do not mention specific counterarguments from proponents of current norms.
2. Protect independent oversight — harden inspector general and special‑prosecutor safeguards
Several sources document mass firings or removals of inspectors general and the disbanding or weakening of oversight teams; reformers propose statutory limits on removals, required congressional notice and specific cause findings to prevent politically motivated purges, and stronger legal insulation for anti‑corruption teams like the DOJ’s Kleptocracy Team and Foreign Influence Task Force (CREW documents firings and the alignment with Project 2025; congressional figures have opened investigations into the gutting of DOJ and FBI corruption teams) [2] [7] [8]. Those advocating reform say without independent watchdogs, executive self-dealing becomes harder to detect and remedy [7] [8]. The White House’s choices to disband or reassign such units are documented but the administration’s defense — that these moves promote “competitiveness” or reorganize priorities — is separately articulated in its FCPA materials [9] [5].
3. Restore and codify robust FCPA and anti‑corruption enforcement
Democratic investigators and watchdog groups argue the Trump executive order pausing FCPA enforcement and related White House guidance created an enforcement vacuum, and they call for congressional rules or statutory protections guaranteeing uninterrupted anti‑bribery enforcement and insulating initiation of investigations from political interference (oversight letters and press releases call this out; the White House described the pause as a competitiveness measure) [3] [4] [5]. Reform options in the reporting include requiring multi‑agency review before any suspension of enforcement and embedding minimum resourcing and independence protections for anti‑corruption units [3]. The administration counters that revised FCPA enforcement restores competitiveness and security, presenting an alternate policy rationale [9].
4. Increase corporate and financial transparency to cut secrecy that enables corruption
Advocates point to tools such as the Corporate Transparency Act as critical to cracking down on shell‑company secrecy that enables foreign influence and hidden payoffs; watchdogs call for stronger implementation and expansion of beneficial‑ownership reporting so investigators can trace who benefits from contracts or donations tied to political access (CREW emphasizes the Corporate Transparency Act as “America’s most important step” against corporate secrecy) [10]. Oversight Democrats’ chronicling of donations followed by dropped enforcement actions underlines why financial transparency is central to suggested reforms [6]. The materials provided do not include legislative text for further expansions; available sources do not mention specific draft bills beyond advocacy references.
5. Congressional investigations, new criminal standards and limits on pardon/interference powers
Lawmakers cited in the sources have launched investigations into alleged retreat from corruption enforcement and highlighted instances — donations coinciding with closed probes — as justification for new statutes limiting presidential interference in investigations, narrower pardon authorities in corruption cases, and clearer criminal standards for emoluments and self‑dealing (Nadler and Warren’s inquiry and Oversight Democrats’ 100‑conflict list are presented as drivers for this agenda) [8] [6]. The White House frames some measures as executive prerogatives meant to rebalance enforcement, creating a direct confrontation between reformers seeking statutory backstops and the administration asserting policy discretion [5] [9].
Limitations and competing narratives: The sources document proposals and advocacy primarily from Democrats, watchdog groups (CREW) and congressional investigators; the White House materials articulate an opposing policy rationale that reduced enforcement serves economic competitiveness and security [9] [5]. Sources catalog allegations and recommended reforms but do not supply enacted bills or their legislative prospects; available sources do not mention concrete bipartisan statutes already passed to implement these reforms [4] [3] [1].