Saturday, June 6, 2026

Trump’s Gift to Drug Cartels, Money Launderers, and Terrorists

Trump’s Gift to Drug Cartels, Money Launderers, and Terrorists

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/06/donald-trump-gao-report-shell-companies-money-laundering-drug-cartels/ 

 

Trump’s Gift to Drug Cartels, Money Launderers, and Terrorists

Making America a safe space for fraudsters, crooks, and national security threats.

Tight photo of Donald Trump in a navy suit and yellow tie with his hand making something like the A-OK sign

President Donald Trump speaks at an event about coal on Thursday in the Oval Office.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

There has justifiably been much attention paid to Donald Trump’s personal corruption: cutting sleazy crypto deals, trading stocks in companies affected by his administration’s decisions, doling out pardons to fraudsters who make hefty donations to his political organizations, and so much more. But what’s even more significant is how Trump is perverting the federal government to allow wealthy individuals and corporations engaged in crooked conduct to escape scrutiny, prosecution, and punishment. Corporate scumbags and felonious plutocrats have never had it so good.

The Trump administration has taken steps to make sure that the United States is a safe space for money launderers, drug cartels, and international financial rogues.

At the Securities and Exchange Commission, enforcement actions have fallen precipitously, and the commission ended several high-profile cryptocurrency inquires that involved Binance, Coinbase, and other firms. The workforce for the SEC’s enforcement division was cut by a fifth last year, with many experienced attorneys and accountants given the boot. The IRS, too, has been hammered by layoffs, and the number of audits of people with $10 million or more in income dropped by two-thirds from 6,786 in 2025 to 2,264 in 2026. With new priorities established at the Justice Department—such as essentially shutting down the pursuit of cases under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—the number of white-collar prosecutions has fallen to its lowest level in at least 40 years, according to the Financial Times.

But beyond this, the Trump administration has taken steps to make sure that the United States is a safe space for money launderers, drug cartels, and international financial rogues. Who says so? The US Government Accountability Office. It recently released a report assessing Trump’s decision to loosen reporting requirements for shell companies. These are corporations that can have legitimate uses but are also set up so people or entitites can evade taxes, launder money, hide assets, and obscure the true beneficiaries of financial transactions. For instance, a sanctioned Russian oligarch might be able to use a shell company—or a string of them—to buy real estate in the United States and keep secret his ownership of the property.

The Corporate Transparency Act, a bipartisan bill passed in 2021, required most US firms to disclose to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) their “beneficial owners”—that is, the real people who control or own them. (In many instances, shell companies do not have to reveal their true owners and are registered in the name of others.) The aim of the legislation was to create a registry of owners and impede illegal financial activities, such as money laundering. An estimated 32 million businesses would have to register and note their real owners. (Several categories of business were exempted because disclosure requirements already applied to them—such as banks, credit unions, and securities dealers.)

But one month into Trump’s second term, his administration essentially eviscerated this reporting requirement, when FinCEN issued rules exempting domestic companies and Americans from this disclosure. As the GAO put it, this new exemption applied “to over 99 percent of entities that were previously targeted.”

The GAO report—in exceedingly dry language—notes this exemption is a boon for assorted malfeasants:

U.S.-based shell companies, often structured as LLCs or corporations, can pose significant risks of illicit finance activity. Treasury’s 2026 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment identified several cases in which shell companies were used to facilitate financial crimes, including laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking, cybercrime, and fraud, among others, indicating the continued risk posed by shell companies. The 2025 domestic reporting company exemption may perpetuate these risks.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, quickly jumped on the GAO report and cited it as evidence Trump is on the side of the bad guys:

The Trump Administration continues to put cartels and criminals ahead of law enforcement, opening the door for them to move millions of dollars through our financial system. Today’s GAO report confirms that Treasury gutted a bipartisan law designed to crack down on the abuse of shell companies, exempted 99 percent of the entities previously required to report, and has failed to address the “significant risks” this rollback created. Law enforcement groups have warned that it will be harder to go after drug traffickers, sanctions evaders, and major criminal enterprises.

Warren noted that one of the main forces behind passage of the Corporate Transparency Act was a former senator named Marco Rubio. In 2020, he tweeted, “My ‘Corporate Transparency Act’ [is] the most significant anti-corruption and money-laundering legislation in decades [and] forces anonymous shell companies to disclose their true owners.”

“There is growing evidence that [Chinese money laundering networks] are taking advantage of shell companies to help cartels move billions through the U.S. financial system.”

Republican and Democratic senators have opposed the Trump administration’s wipeout of the Corporate Transparency Act, as have law enforcement organizations, business groups, and national security–minded think tanks of the right and left. The hawkish and neocon-ish Foundation for Defense of Democracies issued a statement last year that said, “Anonymous U.S. shell companies are not a theoretical vulnerability—they are a proven vehicle for illicit finance, sanctions evasion, corruption, terrorism, and transnational crime…FinCEN’s decision to exempt domestic entities would allow these practices to continue unchecked.”

Last year, Warren, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and other Democratic senators wrote the Treasury to complain about the weakening of this requirement, noting, “There is growing evidence that [Chinese money laundering networks] are taking advantage of shell companies to help cartels move billions through the U.S. financial system.”

The Trump administration claims this disclosure obligation was too onerous for businesses, but it entailed minimal effort for the corporations compelled to register. So why kill this requirement? Warren and other legislators suspect Elon Musk had something to do with this. In a separate letter sent to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in April 2025, she and 18 other congressional Democrats asserted the Trump administration’s decision to neuter the Corporate Transparency Act was “seemingly triggered by a single Elon Musk social media comment.”

They pointed out that Musk, who at that time was a key adviser to Trump and engaged in a reckless dismantling of various government agencies, might have been “benefiting from foreign investments made through legal entities designed to hide the identities of the foreign investors.” They cited the Financial Times: “Wealthy Chinese investors are quietly funneling tens of millions of dollars into private companies controlled by Elon Musk” through “opaque structures” and “an arrangement that shields their identities from public view.”

During the 2020 presidential race, Trump’s campaign, according to the Campaign Legal Center, deployed an LLC to launder “$170 million in spending to conceal payments to people close to the Trump family and campaign.”

Responding to the recent GAO report, Warren asserted that this disclosure requirement would be beneficial for efforts to combat transnational crime, drug trafficking (including fentanyl smuggling), sex trafficking, the evasion of sanctions imposed on Iran, the theft of US technology by China and others, and fraud that targets US government programs. (The criminals that stole federal funds in Minnesota relied on shell companies.)

This may well be a personal issue for Trump. His Trump Organization is a collection of hundreds of shell companies. (Such entities are commonly used for real estate transactions.) And during the 2020 presidential race, Trump’s campaign, according to the Campaign Legal Center, deployed an LLC to launder “$170 million in spending to conceal payments to people close to the Trump family and campaign.”

Corporate reporting rules may seem like a wonkish topic. It certainly is not as visceral as Trump selling pardons or pocketing billions in crypto grift. But it may be more important, for Trump’s decision to protect the secrecy of shell companies—perhaps at the urging of Musk—has more far-ranging consequences than his own sticky-fingers corruption. It’s another way Trump is making America great for plutocrats, oligarchs, fraudsters, and scoundrels.

This is how change happens.

One story at a time.

This investigative reporting takes time too. Months of research. Weeks of writing, editing, and fact checking—and putting together the photography, art, video, and audio that tell the stories in a new way, illuminating new perspectives and voices.

We can afford to take our time because we don’t report to oligarchs or corporations. We report to you, and for you.

And the stakes are high. Democracy is on the defense. We’ve been exposing corruption and scandal for five decades, and this is a pivotal moment in our country’s history. Will democracy prevail? We won’t wait for time to tell—independent journalism is essential for democracy, and we’ll keep doing our part to amplify the free press.

So, we’re asking: Will you join the fight? Mother Jones has been here for 50 years, and we need your support to fuel the future of investigative journalism. Mark our 50th anniversary with a gift of any amount.

We Recommend

Latest

US boat strikes killed over 200 people. Service members have questions

US boat strikes killed over 200 people. Service members have questions

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/06/us-trump-boat-strikes-death-toll/90376052007/ 

US boat strikes killed over 200 people. Service members have questions

President Donald Trump could preemptively pardon service members for acts committed during his term.

Updated June 6, 2026, 8:50 a.m. ET

The U.S. military has killed more than 200 people in strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific in the last nine months in what legal experts and former military lawyers broadly agree constitute illegal military orders that service members should refuse to follow.

While there is no record of troops refusing to follow these orders, at least a handful of service members grappling with these questions have sought legal advice, according to anonymous hotlines for U.S. military members.

Before the Trump-era boat strikes, the United States viewed the drug trade as a law enforcement issue and tasked the Coast Guard with interdicting boats trying to bring drugs into the country.

Since then, the Trump administration has released no evidence that any of the suspected narco-trafficking boats carried drugs or that their occupants worked for drug cartels. It has never identified the people it killed – just a handful of names have been published in news reports. Family members also filed a federal lawsuit naming their relatives, whom they allege were murdered by the United States.

The military has published dozens of videos of the attacks on social media – grainy, black and white videos taken from above of boats speeding through the water before they explode into balls of flame.

And Trump officials continue to say the attacks are lawful. At a June 2 Senate budget hearing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said every boat strike "has a legal officer on the deck that has to make a determination about whether the call is legal or not."

The U.S. military has published dozens of videos of its strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

The Pentagon referred USA TODAY's questions to U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in South America and the Caribbean. The command said in a statement: "All operations are conducted deliberately and lawfully, in full compliance with U.S. and international law, including the law of armed conflict."

"All targeting criteria are developed according to legal, operational, and intelligence requirements."

Since the first strike on Sept. 2, scores of legal experts and former military lawyers have characterized the strikes as extrajudicial killings or murders. Members of the military are required by U.S. law to refuse illegal orders.

Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former military lawyer, said he hoped the boat strikes would serve as an example for future generations.

"It’s going to be a shameful episode in the history of American military operations, and I hope it becomes a case study in what not to do," he said.

Legal hotlines get calls from boat strike operators

Two organizations that provide anonymous legal advice for military members grappling with orders they fear are illegal said they had received calls from service members concerned about the legality of the boat strikes, some from people directly involved in them.

Steve Woolford, a resource counselor with Quaker House and the GI Rights Hotline, said he spoke with about four service members involved in the operation who were seeking legal and ethical guidance. One discussed helping plan a strike, and two others were ordered to execute strikes, he said.

"I think this is exactly what was described as a war crime," Woolford said one caller told him.

Woolford said some of these callers were connected to lawyers, but he wasn't aware of anyone who had refused an order or taken legal action. Callers are "more scared now that they’d be punished if they did bring something up," he said.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has compared drug cartels to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and said the boat strikes act as a deterrent to drug traffickers.

Brenner Fissell, the vice president of the National Institute for Military Justice, said the Institute's Orders Project, which also advises service members questioning if their orders are legal, receives a "steady but small number of calls," including from service members concerned that the boat strikes are illegal, he said.

Some have expressed a "sense of being asked to do things that one is deeply conflicted with the morality of doing," he said.

"There’s a general perception that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for this because Trump will be able to issue pardons preemptively," he added.

If a service member refuses to follow an order, the case may be brought before a military judge to determine whether the order was lawful. However, before that call is made, service members could be removed from duty immediately.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School, said the Pentagon could scrap any charges about illegal orders to strike boats if they arose through the military justice system.

Trump could also preemptively pardon service members for acts committed during his term. "The next administration might find its hands tied in terms of prosecuting anybody for obeying such an order, because President Trump may pardon everybody in sight," Fidell said.

Service members who object to war based on their beliefs can seek conscientious objector status with the military and be released from deployment.

More than 100 people have contacted the Center on Conscience and War, a nonprofit that helps service members apply to file as conscientious objectors, since late February, according to Mike Prysner, the center's director.

Asked whether any service members involved in the boat strikes had refused to follow an order or been reprimanded for doing so, U.S. Southern Command said it "does not comment on unconfirmed reports, speculation, or administrative matters."

Commander who led boat strikes retired early

Speculation swirled around the early retirement of Adm. Alvin Holsey, who led U.S. Southern Command through the first few months of the boat strikes. Holsey left the high-level job after barely a year in December.

Holsey has not spoken publicly or given interviews since he left, but some news outlets reported that he had raised concerns about the strikes.

The family of Chad Joseph, a Trinidadian man, is suing the US government for his alleged unjust killing.

The boat strikes, and videos of them posted to U.S. Southern Command's social media, have continued apace under Gen. Francis Donovan, Holsey's successor.

Six Democratic lawmakers released a video on social media last year urging service members to disobey illegal orders. The FBI opened an investigation, and the Pentagon moved to punish one of them, retired Navy captain Sen. Mark Kelly. A federal appeals court blocked the charges against Kelly.

Last year, anti-war veterans groups put up billboards along the highways leading to U.S. Southern Command's headquarters in Doral, just outside Miami, Florida, showing pictures of the boats that were hit, touted on social media by the military.

"Don’t let them make you break the law," one read.

Second strike on survivors heightens ethical concerns

The simmering concerns surrounding the boat strikes boiled over last year following news reports that the first-ever boat strike in September left two survivors that the military killed in a second, "double-tap" strike about 40 minutes later.

The Pentagon has refused to publicly release footage of that second strike. Lawmakers who viewed it in a classified setting called it deeply disturbing.

"What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service," Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said after viewing it.

"You have two individuals in clear distress – without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel – who were killed by the United States."

International law prohibits killing adversaries who are wounded or have already surrendered. However, many experts say the strikes can't be considered war crimes because the Trump administration's case that it is at war with drug cartels does not stand up to scrutiny.

Maurer, the retired lieutenant colonel, said he found it "highly improbable" that a future administration would prosecute service members involved, both because of the broad popularity of the military and a lack of appetite in Washington to pursue what would resemble a "retribution campaign."

"I don’t think criminal accountability is going to happen," he said.

The mother and sister of Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian men the families say were killed in an Oct. 14 boat strike, have sued the U.S. government for damages over the "wanton, willful, and outrageous killings," according to a complaint filed in January. And relatives of Alejandro Carranza Medina, a Colombian man who was killed in a September strike, filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in December seeking compensation.

Steven Lepper, a retired Air Force major general who organized a working group of former military lawyers after Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth fired top lawyers across the military's services, said he believes service members who participate in or observe illegal orders will eventually normalize them within the military.

"We are desensitizing the military to the notion that the orders they're being given may be unlawful."

 

Hasan Piker on Being Banned from U.K., Traveling to Cuba & Supporting Candidates Critical of Israel

Hasan Piker on Being Banned from U.K., Traveling to Cuba & Supporting Candidates Critical of Israel