This report systematically examines terms and concepts that the administration appears to treat as obstacles or undesirable constraints—what can be termed its "dirty words."
Trump Administration's "Dirty Words" in governance include "audits," "compliance," "integrity," "oversight," "regulation," "international cooperation," "ethics," "rule of law," and "transparency."
The Lexicon of Aversion: Deconstructing the Trump Administration's "Dirty Words" in Governance
by Gemini 2.5 Pro, Deep Research. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!
Introduction: Defining the "Dirty Words" Phenomenon
Overview of Governance Approach
The Trump administration, as depicted in scenarios and actions projected for a 2025 timeframe, exhibits a distinct and consistent pattern of behavior towards established norms and mechanisms of governance. This pattern is characterized by a pronounced skepticism, at times culminating in active dismantling or strategic avoidance, of principles traditionally considered vital for responsible, ethical, and legal government operations in the United States. The administration's actions across various domains suggest a clear preference for consolidated executive power, a reduction in both external and internal checks on that power, and a notably transactional approach to domestic and international policy. This methodology often appears to prioritize immediate objectives and loyalty over procedural integrity and long-term institutional stability.
Introducing the "Dirty Words" Concept
This report systematically examines terms and concepts that the administration appears to treat as obstacles or undesirable constraints—what can be termed its "dirty words." These include "audits," "compliance," "integrity," "oversight," "regulation," "international cooperation," "ethics," "rule of law," and "transparency." By analyzing specific administrative actions, policy shifts, and rhetoric documented in various accounts, this report aims to build a comprehensive picture of this aversion. The objective is to identify these "dirty words" and illustrate, through evidence, how the administration's approach seeks to redefine, diminish, or bypass them, and to explore the broader implications of such a governance philosophy.
Section 1: Dismantling Domestic Oversight and Accountability: The Evasion of "Audits," "Compliance," "Integrity," and "Oversight"
The Trump administration's actions indicate a concerted effort to weaken or eliminate mechanisms designed for internal and external oversight. This approach has profound implications for the principles of audit, compliance, integrity, and overall governmental accountability, suggesting these concepts are viewed as impediments rather than essential components of good governance.
Sub-Section 1.1: Targeting Internal Watchdogs – The FBI Example
A significant illustration of this trend is the abrupt closure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Office of Internal Auditing and its Office of Integrity and Compliance by FBI Director Kash Patel, a Trump appointee.1 These closures, officially described as part of an "internal reorganization," directly impacted bodies whose core functions are synonymous with "audit," "compliance," and "integrity".1 The Office of Internal Auditing, established in 2020 by then-Attorney General William Barr, was specifically tasked with curbing abuses related to FBI surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).1
The timing and nature of these closures raise concerns. The Office of Internal Auditing had played a documented role in exposing past FBI abuses, including warrantless searches of Americans' communications.1 Its leader, Cindy Hall, who abruptly retired following the office's closure, had reportedly been attempting to expand the office's work and onboard new employees. These efforts were allegedly stymied by Trump administration hiring freezes, hinting at a deliberate move to prevent the growth and effectiveness of this oversight body.1 Director Patel, once a vocal critic of FBI surveillance practices, offered no official comment on the decision to close the office, a silence that itself can be interpreted as an avoidance of public scrutiny and accountability for dismantling a key oversight mechanism.1 Experts like Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice noted the difficulty in squaring this move with Patel's previously stated concerns about FBI surveillance abuses, warning that without such a dedicated office, FBI abuses could go "unreported and unchecked".1 This action effectively neutralizes terms like "audit," "compliance," "integrity," and "oversight" within this critical law enforcement agency, creating an accountability vacuum.
Sub-Section 1.2: The Purge of Inspectors General (IGs)
The administration's aversion to oversight extends beyond specific agency offices to the broader framework of Inspectors General (IGs). In a hypothetical 2025 scenario, mirroring patterns from a previous term, the administration summarily fired 17 federal IGs within its first week, without providing explanations or the legally required notice to Congress.2 This action followed a precedent set in 2020, when IGs investigating sensitive matters—such as the whistleblower complaint regarding President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, pandemic supply shortages, or alleged misconduct by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—were similarly dismissed.2 Notably, some IGs fired in the 2025 purge were reportedly investigating matters connected to Trump ally Elon Musk, including reviews of SpaceX's compliance with federal reporting protocols and an investigation into Musk's Neuralink startup.2
Inspectors General are statutorily independent "watchdogs" tasked with uncovering "waste, fraud, and abuse," and are therefore crucial for "oversight" and "accountability" within the federal government. The mass dismissal of IGs, particularly without adherence to the Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended in 2022 to require substantive, case-specific reasons for removal and 30 days' notice to Congress), constitutes a direct assault on these principles.2 Such actions are not mere administrative shuffles; they signal an intent to evade the scrutiny that these independent bodies are designed to provide. The targeting of IGs whose investigations could prove politically inconvenient or impact allies suggests a motivation that transcends general efficiency concerns, pointing towards a pre-emptive neutralization of potential sources of damaging information or legal challenges. This disregard for legal requirements in removing IGs also indicates a willingness to operate outside established legal frameworks when those frameworks impede swift action, thereby treating the "rule of law" itself as an inconvenience. The Campaign Legal Center has characterized these firings as a method of "curtailing oversight and the enforcement of ethics laws".4 Eight fired IGs subsequently sued the administration, seeking to have their firings declared unlawful.3
Sub-Section 1.3: Weakening the Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), the primary agency responsible for overseeing ethics in the executive branch, has also faced measures that diminish its capacity and independence. On February 10, 2025, President Trump removed OGE Director David Huitema, replacing him with his personal attorney.5 This move occurred in parallel with an executive order pausing the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a key anti-bribery law.5 This was not the first instance of such an action; during his initial term, President Trump had also fired the OGE director and effectively reduced the directorship to a part-time position.6
The OGE plays a central role in preventing "conflicts of interest" and upholding "ethical standards" across the executive branch by providing guidance, training, and reviewing financial disclosures.5 Replacing its independent leadership with a presidential loyalist, particularly one with direct personal ties to the President, fundamentally compromises the OGE's perceived and actual independence. This action, especially when viewed alongside the simultaneous weakening of anti-corruption statutes like the FCPA, signals a significant degradation of the government's ethics infrastructure.4 Common Cause and the Campaign Legal Center have highlighted these moves as part of a pattern aimed at hamstringing bodies designed to ensure ethical conduct and accountability.4
The consistent pattern of removing leadership, closing offices, and circumventing procedural and legal requirements across these diverse oversight bodies—the FBI's internal auditors, the corps of Inspectors General, and the Office of Government Ethics—points to a systematic effort. This is not merely about reforming oversight for greater efficiency; it appears to be a deliberate strategy to diminish the power of these entities to check executive actions and ensure accountability. The cumulative effect is an environment with fewer effective checks and balances, which inherently increases the potential for unchecked power, ethical lapses, and corruption. The specific targeting of IGs involved in politically sensitive investigations further suggests that the administration is not just averse to oversight in principle, but actively seeks to neutralize specific oversight functions that could pose a direct threat to its agenda or allies, creating a chilling effect on those who remain.
Section 2: The War on "Regulation": Undermining Environmental, Consumer, and Worker Protections
A defining characteristic of the Trump administration's approach to governance is an aggressive deregulatory agenda. "Regulation" itself, along with specific regulatory frameworks and the agencies that enforce them, are frequently portrayed and treated as impediments to economic progress, to be removed or significantly weakened. This stance has far-reaching consequences for public health, environmental safety, consumer rights, and worker protections.
Sub-Section 2.1: Environmental Deregulation – "NEPA," "Clean Air Act," "Climate Change," "Pollution Control" as Targets
The administration has undertaken a systematic rollback of environmental regulations. A cornerstone of this effort is the move to "rescind all NEPA rules," referring to the National Environmental Policy Act.8 This action aims to dismantle a regulatory structure for environmental assessments that has been in place for nearly five decades, streamlining environmental reviews and imposing deadlines for Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).8 NEPA is crucial for ensuring that federal agencies consider the environmental consequences of their proposed actions and allow for public input.
Further, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced extensive plans to dismantle federal air quality and carbon pollution regulations. This "hit list" includes 31 actions targeting critical protections such as soot standards, power plant pollution rules, and, significantly, the "endangerment finding".9 The endangerment finding is the scientific and legal foundation upon which the EPA regulates greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act; attacking it undermines the agency's core climate mission. Compounding these rollbacks, the EPA reportedly halted the enforcement of pollution regulations at energy facilities and barred the consideration of "environmental justice" concerns in its actions.9 "Environmental justice" aims to ensure that minority and low-income communities do not disproportionately bear the brunt of pollution and environmental hazards.
The administration has also taken direct aim at the science and economics underpinning climate policy. It directed federal agencies to cease using the "social cost of carbon" in their decision-making processes.9 This metric quantifies the long-term economic damages associated with emitting one ton of carbon dioxide and is used to assess the benefits of climate regulations. Its disuse effectively devalues the future impacts of climate change. Funding for the National Climate Assessment, a critical report summarizing climate impacts on the U.S., was canceled, and mentions of "climate change" were scrubbed from federal websites.9 These actions represent a fundamental assault on environmental protection, prioritizing short-term economic considerations, particularly for fossil fuel industries, over environmental health, sustainability, and science-based policymaking. The dismissal of EPA science advisory panel members further erodes the role of independent scientific advice in regulatory decisions.9
Sub-Section 2.2: Weakening Financial Safeguards – "Dodd-Frank," "CFPB," "Consumer Protection" Under Fire
The financial regulatory landscape has also been a target. President Trump signed a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to void a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule.10 This rule would have extended the CFPB's supervisory authority to large nonbank financial service providers, such as digital wallet and payment app companies.10 The administration characterized this as reversing a "midnight rule" from the previous administration, with proponents like Senator Pete Ricketts calling it a "common sense measure".10 However, consumer advocates warned that this action would place popular payment apps in a "regulatory blind spot," leaving consumers with limited recourse.10
Under Trump-appointed leadership, the CFPB itself shifted its enforcement priorities. The agency announced it would focus on "clear consumer harm (particularly fraud affecting servicemembers and veterans)" while significantly reducing the number of examinations by 50% and avoiding enforcement actions based solely on statistical evidence or "novel legal theories".11 This shift involved deprioritizing oversight in areas such as medical debt, peer-to-peer payment platforms, and student loans.11 Furthermore, the CFPB halted compliance with Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which mandates the collection of data on small business lending, and announced plans for a complete rewrite of the rule, while Congress concurrently moved to repeal it entirely.11 Congress also successfully blocked a CFPB rule capping overdraft fees, and a federal court struck down a rule limiting credit card late fees.11
These actions collectively curtail the reach and power of the CFPB, an agency specifically created by the Dodd-Frank Act in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers in the financial marketplace. Nullifying rules via the CRA, narrowing enforcement focus away from systemic issues and statistical evidence of discrimination (such as redlining), and halting crucial data collection efforts reduce transparency and accountability for financial institutions. This potentially leaves consumers more vulnerable to predatory lending and other harmful practices. While the administration may frame these as efforts to reduce regulatory burden, the practical effect is a weakening of "consumer protection" itself. The diminishing federal role may necessitate greater reliance on state attorneys general and state financial regulators to enforce consumer protection laws, including provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, potentially leading to a fragmented regulatory environment.12
Sub-Section 2.3: Diluting Workplace Safety – "OSHA," "Worker Safety Standards," "Enforcement" Relaxed
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), tasked with ensuring "worker safety," has also experienced a shift towards a less stringent regulatory approach. The Trump administration's first term saw a significant slowdown in OSHA rulemaking, with a preference for rolling back existing standards rather than developing new ones.13 This trend was amplified by a "10-to-1" deregulation initiative, requiring agencies to eliminate ten regulations for every new one introduced.13 As a result, proposed rules, such as a standard to protect workers from Heat Stress, were deemed unlikely to be finalized, with enforcement for such hazards likely reverting to OSHA's general duty clause, which carries a higher burden of proof for the agency.13
OSHA's enforcement posture also appeared to soften. Reports indicated a drop in the number of inspectors and a strategic shift towards "voluntary compliance programs" over punitive fines, particularly for small businesses and first-time offenders.13 This approach emphasizes collaboration with businesses rather than penalties. Additionally, rules implemented by the previous Biden administration, such as the "Walkaround Rule" (which allows third-party representatives, like union officials, to accompany OSHA inspectors at non-unionized worksites) and expanded electronic injury reporting requirements for large employers in high-hazard industries, faced the risk of being scaled back or withdrawn.13
These changes collectively signal a lighter federal touch on "worker safety standards" and "enforcement." Reducing new rulemaking, softening enforcement actions, and rolling back existing or pending protections can lead to increased risks for workers on the job. While the emphasis on "voluntary compliance" may be presented as a more business-friendly approach, it may not provide a sufficient deterrent to unsafe practices, potentially compromising OSHA's mission to ensure safe and healthful working conditions.
The deregulatory efforts observed across environmental, financial, and workplace safety agencies are not isolated incidents but reflect a comprehensive philosophical commitment to reducing the scope and power of "regulation." This is achieved through various procedural and legal tools, including the Congressional Review Act, executive orders, reinterpretation of statutory authority, and simply halting enforcement. The justifications often center on reducing burdens on businesses and promoting economic activity, frequently downplaying or dismissing concerns about public health, environmental protection, or consumer and worker safety. A significant casualty in this process is often scientific integrity and data-driven policymaking, as seen in the cancellation of climate reports, the scrubbing of scientific information from government websites, and the dismissal of science advisory panels. As federal oversight wanes, there is an increasing likelihood that state-level authorities will attempt to fill the void, potentially creating an uneven and complex regulatory landscape across the nation.
Section 3: Retreat from the Global Stage: "International Agreements," "Treaties," and "Multilateralism" as "Dirty Words"
The Trump administration's approach to international relations is marked by a consistent pattern of withdrawal from, criticism of, or attempts to undermine international agreements, treaties, and multilateral organizations. This behavior suggests that concepts of global cooperation, binding international commitments, and "multilateralism" are often viewed as undesirable constraints on American sovereignty and freedom of action, rather than as tools for achieving shared goals and maintaining global stability.
Sub-Section 3.1: Climate Change – Abandoning the "Paris Agreement"
A prominent example of this retreat is the handling of the "Paris Agreement" on climate change. President Trump announced the United States' withdrawal from this landmark accord during his first term in June 2017, a decision that formally took effect in November 2020.15 Upon entering a hypothetical second term, an executive order was signed on January 20, 2025, to initiate withdrawal for a second time, following a rejoining of the agreement under the Biden administration.9
The stated justifications for these withdrawals centered on the assertion that the agreement would "undermine" the U.S. economy and place the nation "at a permanent disadvantage," being "very unfair at the highest level" to the United States.15 This "America First" framing prioritizes perceived immediate national economic interests over collective global action to address the scientifically established threat of climate change. The U.S. withdrawal has significant repercussions, hampering global efforts to mitigate climate change, impacting international climate finance (such as contributions to the Green Climate Fund 15), and damaging U.S. credibility and leadership on a critical global issue. Public opinion polls indicated that a majority of Americans opposed the initial withdrawal.17
Sub-Section 3.2: Global Health – Exiting the "World Health Organization (WHO)"
Similar actions were taken concerning the "World Health Organization (WHO)." The Trump administration signaled its intent to withdraw from the WHO in 2020 and formalized this intent again via an executive order on January 20, 2025.18 The reasons cited included the WHO's alleged "mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic," its purported "failure to adopt urgently needed reforms," and an asserted "inability to demonstrate independence from the People’s Republic of China".19
Withdrawing from the WHO, particularly in the context of a global pandemic, carries substantial risks. It undermines international health security cooperation, cedes U.S. influence in global health governance, and can have severe consequences for pandemic preparedness and response worldwide.20 The United States has historically been the largest financial contributor to the WHO, and its departure would likely lead to significant operational and programmatic cutbacks within the organization.20 This move reflects a nationalist approach to inherently global health challenges, where "international cooperation" is devalued.
Sub-Section 3.3: Nuclear Non-Proliferation – Undermining the "Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)"
In the realm of nuclear non-proliferation, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the "Iran Nuclear Deal," in May 2018.17 This agreement, negotiated and signed by Iran and several world powers (including the U.S.), placed significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
The administration's rationale for withdrawal was that the deal failed to adequately address Iran's ballistic missile program and its regional influence, and that "sunset provisions" within the agreement would eventually allow Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.21 President Trump personally viewed the JCPOA as "deeply flawed".17 The U.S. withdrawal, a unilateral decision, jeopardized the agreement, led Iran to resume and accelerate its nuclear activities, and significantly increased regional tensions and the risk of proliferation.21 This action demonstrated a clear preference for unilateral pressure and sanctions over negotiated "multilateral agreements" and "diplomacy."
Sub-Section 3.4: Trade and Human Rights – Skepticism towards "WTO" and "UN Human Rights Council"
The administration has also displayed significant skepticism and taken confrontational stances towards other key multilateral bodies, including the "World Trade Organization (WTO)" and the "UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)." President Trump repeatedly threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the WTO, claiming it treats the U.S. unfairly and too often rules against American interests.22 More concretely, his administration blocked the appointment of new judges to the WTO's Appellate Body, the organization's supreme authority for resolving trade disputes, effectively paralyzing its dispute settlement function.22 This was part of a broader plan to "dismantle international trade rules in favor of reciprocal bilateral tariffs".18 The imposition of tariffs on goods from numerous countries, often justified under tenuous "national security" or "public morals" exceptions, was widely seen as violating core WTO principles and the "rules-based order" for global trade.22
Regarding the "UN Human Rights Council," the U.S. withdrew during Trump's first term, with the administration labeling the council a "cesspool of political bias".25 An executive order issued in February 2025 declared the intent to withdraw again.18 Alongside this, the administration established a "Commission on Unalienable Rights," which sought to redefine international human rights, notably by elevating religious freedom and property rights over other established human rights principles.25 Challenging the WTO undermines the stability of the global trading system, risking trade wars and economic uncertainty.23 Withdrawing from the UNHRC reduces U.S. leverage to advocate for "human rights" globally and can be interpreted as an abdication of leadership, potentially emboldening authoritarian regimes.25
Sub-Section 3.5: Broader Anti-Multilateral Stance – "Treaties," "International Organizations" in General
Beyond these specific examples, a broader anti-multilateral stance is evident. An executive order signed on February 4, 2025, mandated a comprehensive review of all multilateral organizations of which the United States is a member and all international "treaties" to which it is a party. The explicit purpose was to determine if U.S. support should be withdrawn if these commitments are deemed "contrary to the interests of the United States".18 This sweeping directive could potentially lead to the abrogation of numerous treaties and U.S. departure from a wide array of "international organizations." This followed earlier actions such as withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement immediately after taking office in his first term 17 and repeated threats against alliances like NATO.17
The justifications for this overarching skepticism towards multilateralism often revolve around the idea that international bodies and treaties infringe on American "sovereignty," unduly restrict U.S. freedom of action, and are excessively costly.18 Furthermore, President Trump's personal negotiating philosophy, which reportedly included not feeling obliged to agreements he hadn't personally negotiated and viewing reliability as a potential weakness, heavily influenced these decisions.17 This overarching approach prioritizes a narrow, transactional "America First" policy over broader, long-term strategic alliances and the established "global order."
The administration's foreign policy frequently invokes "U.S. sovereignty" not merely as a principle of national independence, but as a primary rationale for rejecting international laws, norms, and cooperative frameworks that might impose constraints or mutual obligations.18 This framing casts international cooperation not as a tool for mutual benefit or addressing global challenges, but as an inherent threat to national autonomy, effectively turning adherence to "international law" into a "dirty word." This perspective is compounded by a personalization of foreign policy, where decisions to withdraw from or challenge agreements appear heavily influenced by the President's personal views and a desire for immediate, tangible "wins," rather than long-term strategic considerations.17 Economic nationalism often overrides global commitments, with perceived domestic economic advantages, particularly for favored industries, taking precedence over adherence to international environmental, trade, or human rights standards.15 Actions such as blocking WTO appellate body appointments or withdrawing from the UNHRC directly weaken international mechanisms for dispute resolution and human rights accountability, thereby undermining the very concept of "international accountability".23 The cumulative effect of U.S. withdrawal from key agreements and organizations can create a power vacuum and have a chilling effect on global cooperation, potentially encouraging other nations to reduce their commitments and eroding the fabric of multilateral efforts.15
Section 4: Redefining "Ethics," "Integrity," and "Transparency" in Government
The Trump administration's actions and policies present significant challenges to traditional understandings of governmental "ethics," "integrity," and "transparency." This often involves reinterpreting, bypassing, or actively dismantling established rules and norms, particularly those concerning conflicts of interest, presidential financial dealings, and anti-corruption measures.
Sub-Section 4.1: The "Emoluments Clause" and Presidential Business Interests
A central point of contention has been the administration's approach to the Foreign "Emoluments Clause" of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9), which prohibits federal officeholders from accepting gifts or benefits from foreign states without congressional consent. During President Trump's first term, his administration advocated for a notably narrow interpretation of this clause, arguing it should apply only to payments received in exchange for specific personal services rendered by the president, rather than to broader business transactions.6 Litigation concerning these matters concluded without a definitive resolution when President Trump left office in 2021, with the Supreme Court dismissing pending cases as moot.6
For a hypothetical second term ("Trump 2.0"), the Trump Organization reportedly revised its ethics policy to permit a wide array of transactions with foreign governments, including dealings with sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises.6 While an "ethics advisor" position was part of this revised policy, their remit was restricted, not covering all deals with foreign governments.6 This policy framework apparently facilitated significant foreign financial involvement, such as an Abu Dhabi-backed investment fund utilizing a Trump-affiliated "stablecoin" for a $2 billion investment in a major crypto exchange.6 President Trump also launched his own $TRUMP cryptocurrency token, an action reported to have significantly increased his personal wealth.29
These arrangements directly engage the concerns underlying the Emoluments Clause, which was designed by the framers to safeguard against foreign corruption and undue influence on U.S. officials.6 The administration's narrow interpretation and the revised business policies appear to challenge the spirit and intent of this constitutional safeguard, creating avenues for foreign financial interests to potentially influence the presidency. The lack of robust, independent review for such complex international business dealings raises serious questions about "transparency," "accountability," and the potential for "conflicts of interest".6 The Brennan Center for Justice has argued that such actions represent a brazen profiting from office and has called for reforms, including the mandatory use of blind trusts for presidential assets.29 This approach attempts to redefine "ethics" and "conflict of interest" in a manner that normalizes or permits activities traditionally viewed as highly problematic.
Sub-Section 4.2: Weakening Anti-Corruption Enforcement – The "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)"
The administration has also taken steps that could weaken the enforcement of key "anti-corruption" laws. Reports indicate a scaling back of enforcement of the "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)," a critical statute that criminalizes the bribery of foreign officials by U.S. individuals and corporations.4 More pointedly, on February 10, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order explicitly pausing the enforcement of the FCPA, with the stated justification that the law places U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage on the global stage.5
The FCPA is a cornerstone of international efforts to combat bribery and promote ethical business practices. Pausing or significantly weakening its enforcement signals a greater tolerance for such corrupt practices and undermines the United States' role in global anti-corruption initiatives. This action, notably occurring on the same day as the removal of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics 5, suggests a coordinated effort to reduce oversight related to bribery and ethical conduct in international business dealings. This makes "anti-corruption" and adherence to "international business standards" appear to be low priorities.
Sub-Section 4.3: Dismantling "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)" Initiatives
The Trump administration has also targeted "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)" initiatives within the federal government and among its contractors. This has been pursued through executive orders such as EO 14151, titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences," and EO 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity".30 These orders aim to eliminate federal personnel and programs focused on DEI, compel federal contractors to cease their internal DEI efforts, and promote a return to what are termed "merit-based practices" that discourage any form of preference based on race or sex in hiring, promotion, or contracting.30
The stated rationale frames DEI programs as "radical and wasteful" or as a form of "illegal discrimination" that promotes "preferences" over "merit".30 This represents a significant reversal of longstanding efforts to promote diversity and ensure equity within federal employment and contracting. Critics argue that this approach mischaracterizes the purpose of DEI initiatives, which are generally designed to identify and address systemic barriers to opportunity and to foster more representative and equitable workplaces. The administration's stance could roll back progress in these areas. The lack of clear guidance from the administration on what constitutes "illegal DEI" has also created considerable uncertainty and compliance challenges for agencies and contractors.30 This rhetorical strategy conflates anti-discrimination principles with an anti-DEI agenda, effectively recasting "DEI" as a "dirty word" by portraying it as antithetical to fairness rather than a means to achieve it.
Sub-Section 4.4: General Erosion of "Ethical Standards" and "Accountability" for Officials
Beyond specific policies, a broader erosion of "ethical standards" and "accountability" for government officials has been observed. Public perception data from Pew Research indicated that while partisan, overall assessments of the ethical standards of Trump administration officials were more negative compared to several prior administrations.31 The Department of Justice reportedly dropped ongoing investigations and prosecutions involving serious violations of campaign finance and ethics laws, such as the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, allegedly in exchange for political cooperation.4 This suggests that political loyalty can supersede the impartial "enforcement" of laws designed to ensure "integrity."
Furthermore, the administration rescinded Biden-era ethics commitments for appointees. These commitments had prohibited certain connections with lobbyist activities and were designed to limit the "revolving door" phenomenon, whereby officials leverage their government service for more favorable private and foreign job prospects shortly after leaving office.32 Revoking these guidelines aligns with actions taken at the end of President Trump's first term when similar ethics restrictions were removed.32 This signals an acceptance, or even normalization, of practices that can blur the lines between public service and private gain, potentially leading officials to make decisions while in office that favor future employers rather than solely the "public trust." The scaling back of enforcement of foreign lobbyist reporting requirements and rules requiring disclosure of shell companies' beneficial owners further reduces "transparency," making it harder to detect and prosecute corruption or undue "foreign influence".4
Collectively, these actions contribute to an environment where ethical lapses may be more easily tolerated or go unpunished. The weakening of "ethics rules," the perceived politicization of enforcement, and the normalization of the "revolving door" undermine public confidence that officials are acting primarily in the public interest.
Section 5: Challenging Democratic Foundations: "Rule of Law," "Judicial Independence," "Press Freedom," and "Democratic Processes" Under Strain
The Trump administration's actions and rhetoric have extended to challenging or appearing to undermine fundamental democratic institutions and processes. These include the judiciary, the free press, electoral integrity, and the broader concepts of the "rule of law" and constitutional "checks and balances," placing significant strain on the foundations of American democracy.
Sub-Section 5.1: Pressure on the "Judiciary" and "Rule of Law"
Respect for "judicial independence" and adherence to "court orders" are cornerstones of the "rule of law." However, the Trump administration has reportedly disregarded court orders, threatened the impeachment of judges, and launched attacks against law firms and lawyers perceived as oppositional.33 Public opinion data indicates widespread concern over such possibilities, with a strong majority of Americans believing the administration has to follow federal court rulings.31
Further challenging the established "separation of powers," President Trump issued an executive order aimed at placing independent regulatory agencies under direct presidential purview.7 Such a move threatens the autonomy of these agencies, which are often designed to operate with a degree of insulation from political pressure to ensure impartial application of laws and regulations. Weakening their independence could diminish their ability to hold the president and the executive branch accountable to the "rule of law." These actions, if systemic, risk eroding public faith in the legal system and the principle of "checks and balances" essential to constitutional governance.
Sub-Section 5.2: Assault on "Press Freedom"
A free and independent press is constitutionally protected by the "First Amendment" and plays a vital role in informing the public and holding government accountable. The Trump administration has engaged in actions perceived as an assault on "press freedom." This includes targeting individual journalists, initiating or threatening lawsuits against media outlets (for instance, a $20 billion lawsuit was filed against CBS over a "60 Minutes" interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, deemed "baseless" by many experts 34), and pulling federal funding that supports free press initiatives globally.33
Moreover, the administration has been accused of abusing regulatory power through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Under FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, the agency reopened an investigation into CBS regarding the aforementioned "60 Minutes" interview, a move seen by critics as politically motivated and potentially aimed at influencing the pending merger review of CBS's parent company, Paramount Global.34 The FCC also initiated investigations into other news organizations critical of the President or his policies, including NPR, PBS, and San Francisco-based radio station KCBS.34 Control over media access to White House briefings was also asserted, with outlets like the Associated Press reportedly barred for refusing to use language preferred by the administration.34 Such tactics can create a chilling effect on reporting, discouraging critical coverage and undermining the media's watchdog role. This weaponization of government machinery against perceived media adversaries is a significant concern.
Sub-Section 5.3: Undermining "Elections," "Voting Rights," and "Democratic Processes"
The integrity of "elections" and the protection of "voting rights" are fundamental to "democratic processes." An executive order issued on March 25, 2025, sought to assert unprecedented federal control over election administration, largely based on widely debunked claims of systemic non-citizen voting and voter fraud.35 This order would direct the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent agency, to require documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) for federal voter registration—a measure likely to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters lacking such specific documentation.35 It also proposed allowing federal agencies to subpoena voting records for "list maintenance" and prohibited the use of ballot tabulation equipment that employs barcodes, a common and efficient technology.35 The reliance on disinformation as a basis for such significant policy changes is a particularly concerning aspect, as it erodes fact-based policymaking.
The executive order further threatened to withhold federal funding from state and local election offices that did not comply with its directives and instructed the Department of Justice to take action against states that allow the counting of mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day, even if legally postmarked by the deadline.35 These measures represent a significant shift of power over election administration from states and Congress to the executive branch, challenging principles of "federalism" in this area.
Paradoxically, while citing the need to protect against "foreign interference" as a justification for these election changes, the administration took steps that weakened the U.S. government's ability to monitor and combat such interference. This included disbanding the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force and DOJ groups focused on seizing assets of Russian oligarchs involved in influence operations, as well as imposing funding and staff cuts on the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is responsible for election security resources.4 This contradictory stance suggests that "foreign interference" may be used selectively as a pretext, rather than being a consistently addressed threat.
Sub-Section 5.4: Disregard for "Constitutional Norms" and "Peaceful Transition of Power"
The administration's actions have also shown a disregard for certain fundamental "constitutional norms" and democratic traditions. Reports indicate that individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, attempt to overthrow the "peaceful transition of power" were freed by the administration.28 This action undermines a cornerstone of democratic stability.
Furthermore, presidential statements regarding other sovereign nations—such as referring to Canada as the "future 51st State," claiming the U.S. will "have Greenland, one way or another," and asserting that the Panama Canal "still belongs to the U.S."—appear to violate established principles of international law and norms of "territorial integrity".24 Domestically, efforts to end "birthright citizenship" via executive order have been widely deemed unconstitutional, as birthright citizenship is generally understood to be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.7
These actions and statements, taken together, indicate a willingness to challenge or disregard established legal and constitutional frameworks, both domestically and internationally, when they conflict with the administration's objectives. The cumulative effect of attacking the judiciary, the press, and the integrity of elections can lead to a dangerous erosion of public trust in these essential democratic institutions, potentially conditioning a segment of the population to distrust any institution or information source that is critical of the administration. This can have long-lasting, corrosive effects on democratic stability and civic discourse. Many of these actions point towards an effort to consolidate power within the executive branch, diminishing the influence of other branches of government, independent bodies, and state authorities, thereby weakening the system of "checks and balances."
Conclusion: The Lexicon of Aversion – The Trump Administration's "Dirty Words" List
Recap of Key Patterns
The analysis of the Trump administration's approach to governance, based on the available information primarily projecting a 2025 scenario, reveals consistent and overarching patterns. There is a systematic effort to weaken, dismantle, or bypass mechanisms of oversight and accountability, evident in actions against internal FBI auditors, Inspectors General, and the Office of Government Ethics. An aggressive deregulatory agenda pervades environmental, financial, and worker safety domains, often justified by prioritizing economic considerations over protective mandates, and frequently sidelining scientific evidence and data transparency.
In the international arena, a distinct retreat from multilateral cooperation is apparent, characterized by withdrawals from or undermining of key international agreements and organizations like the Paris Agreement, the WHO, the JCPOA, and skepticism towards the WTO and UN Human Rights Council. This is driven by a unilateralist, "America First" ideology that views international commitments primarily as constraints on U.S. sovereignty.
Furthermore, traditional notions of governmental ethics, integrity, and transparency are challenged. This is seen in the narrow interpretation of the Emoluments Clause, the weakening of anti-corruption enforcement like the FCPA, the dismantling of DEI initiatives under the guise of combating "discrimination," and a general tolerance for actions that blur the lines between public service and private gain. Finally, fundamental democratic institutions and processes—including the rule of law, judicial independence, press freedom, and electoral integrity—face direct challenges through executive actions and rhetoric that seek to consolidate power, weaponize government agencies, and undermine public trust.
These are not isolated incidents but rather form a coherent pattern of governance where many conventional principles and instruments of responsible, ethical, and legal government are treated as "dirty words"—obstacles to be overcome or ignored in pursuit of the administration's objectives.
Presentation of the "Dirty Words" List
The following table encapsulates key terms and concepts that the Trump administration, through its actions and policies, appears to treat with aversion, effectively rendering them "dirty words" in its lexicon of governance.
Table: The Trump Administration's "Dirty Words": A Glossary of Aversion
Broader Implications and Concluding Thoughts
The consistent aversion to these terms and the principles they represent has profound implications. Domestically, it risks creating a government with fewer checks on executive power, reduced accountability for officials, greater vulnerability to corruption and conflicts of interest, and weakened protections for citizens and the environment. The erosion of trust in democratic institutions—the judiciary, the press, the electoral system—can have lasting damage, potentially leading to increased political polarization and civic disengagement.
Internationally, the retreat from multilateralism and established alliances diminishes U.S. influence and leadership, creates power vacuums that other global actors may fill, and hampers collective efforts to address transnational challenges like climate change, pandemics, and economic stability. The normalization of disregarding international law and commitments can embolden authoritarian tendencies globally.
While this analysis is based on information largely depicting a hypothetical 2025 scenario, it reflects documented tendencies and policy directions from a previous term. The long-term consequences of such a governance approach could fundamentally alter the nature of American democracy, its role in the world, and the well-being of its populace.
Areas for Vigilance and Further Examination
Continued vigilance and examination will be crucial in several areas:
The capacity and willingness of state-level regulatory and protective bodies to counteract federal pullbacks.
The judiciary's role and effectiveness in serving as a check on executive overreach and upholding constitutional principles.
The response of civil society organizations, the media, and the public in demanding accountability, transparency, and adherence to democratic norms.
The long-term impact on the independence, morale, and expertise of the federal civil service.
The evolution of international alliances and coalitions in response to a U.S. posture that de-emphasizes multilateral engagement.
Understanding these dynamics will be essential in navigating the evolving landscape of American governance.
Works cited
FBI Director Kash Patel Abruptly Closes Internal Watchdog Office Overseeing Surveillance Compliance.pdf
Trump's Illegal Firing of Inspectors General - American Oversight, accessed May 21, 2025, https://americanoversight.org/investigation/trumps-illegal-firing-of-inspectors-general/
8 inspectors general fired by Trump file lawsuit challenging dismissals - CBS News, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inspectors-general-fired-trump-lawsuit/
The Trump Administration Has Opened the Door to More Corruption, accessed May 21, 2025, https://campaignlegal.org/update/trump-administration-has-opened-door-more-corruption
Trump Weakens Government Oversight: OGE Director Removed - Common Cause, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.commoncause.org/resources/trump-weakens-government-oversight/
Trump 2.0 and the Foreign Emoluments Clause | American ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.aei.org/op-eds/trump-2-0-and-the-foreign-emoluments-clause/
The Trump Administration's (Second) 100 Days: What You Need to Know, accessed May 21, 2025, https://campaignlegal.org/update/trump-administrations-second-100-days-what-you-need-know
Tracking regulatory changes in the second Trump administration, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-changes-in-the-second-trump-administration/
Climate Action Campaign Trump's Climate and Clean Energy ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.actonclimate.com/trumptracker/
Trump signs resolution voiding CFPB large nonbank supervision ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2025/05/21/trump-signs-resolution-voiding-cfpb-large-nonbank-supervision-rule/
May 2025 Regulatory Update: Changes at the CFPB, 1071 and Other Rules - Ncontracts, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.ncontracts.com/nsight-blog/may-regulatory-update
The Continued State Enforcement of Federal Financial Regulatory Laws, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2025/03/The-Continued-State-Enforcement-of-Federal-Financial-Regulatory-Laws
Anticipated Regulatory Changes with OSHA - Goldberg Segalla, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/news-and-knowledge/knowledge/anticipated-regulatory-changes-with-osha/
What Employers Can Expect from OSHA Under Trump's Second Term, accessed May 21, 2025, https://natlawreview.com/article/osha-2025-observations-and-expectations
United States and the Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, accessed May 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Paris_Agreement
U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Process and Potential Effects - Congress.gov, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48504/R48504.1.pdf
Wrecking Ball-In-Chief: Trump's Withdrawals from International ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.e-ir.info/2019/07/17/wrecking-ball-in-chief-trumps-withdrawals-from-international-commitments/
The Death of the World America Made | Carnegie Endowment for ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/02/trump-executive-order-treaties-organizations?lang=en
Withdrawing The United States From The World Health Organization - The White House, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/
The Consequences of the U.S.'s Withdrawal from the WHO | Johns Hopkins, accessed May 21, 2025, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-consequences-of-the-us-withdrawal-from-the-who
What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal? | Council on Foreign Relations, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal
Trump threatens to pull US out of World Trade Organization - BBC, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45364150
The Trump Administration's Critique of the World Trade Organisation and its Implications for the International Trading System - Scholarship Repository, accessed May 21, 2025, https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=ijiel
International Law Under Pressure - Verfassungsblog, accessed May 21, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/international-law-violations-trump-administration/
The Targeted Chaos of Trump's Attacks Against International Human Rights Law and Justice | ACLU of Florida, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.aclufl.org/en/news/targeted-chaos-trumps-attacks-against-international-human-rights-law-and-justice
The Targeted Chaos of Trump's Attacks Against International Human Rights Law and Justice | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/the-targeted-chaos-of-trumps-attacks-against-international-human-rights-law-and-justice
The WTO at 30: The return of higher tariffs - Peterson Institute for International Economics, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/2025/wto-30-return-higher-tariffs
Statement on Trump Administration, International Law & Institutions - Just Security, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/107687/statement-trump-international-law-human-rights/
Past Presidents Have Tested Ethics Norms — This Time Is Different ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/past-presidents-have-tested-emoluments-clause-time-different
The Trump Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.governmentcontractslawblog.com/2025/04/articles/executive-orders/the-trump-administrations-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dei-executive-orders-a-brief-primer/
Views of how the Trump administration governs | Pew Research ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/04/23/views-of-how-the-trump-administration-governs/
President Trump Rescinds Executive Orders Impacting Executive Personnel Ethics Commitments and Census Parameters | COSSA - Consortium of Social Science Associations, accessed May 21, 2025, https://cossa.org/president-trump-rescinds-executive-orders-impacting-executive-personnel-ethics-commitments-and-census-parameters/
President Trump's First 100 Days: Attacks on Human Rights, Cruelty ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/president-trumps-first-100-days-attacks-on-human-rights/
The Trump Administration and the FCC Are Weakening Freedom of ..., accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-and-the-fcc-are-weakening-freedom-of-the-press-and-hurting-americans/
Trump's executive order threatens to undermine American elections, accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/executive-order-threatens-to-undermine-american-elections/