"🚨 SHOCKING CLAIM: OBama DROPS A BOMBSHELL ABOUT GOVERNMENT CORRUP
Former President Barack Obama says the federal government is less corrupt than at virtually any point in American history when measured by traditional forms of political corruption such as bribery, patronage, and favor-trading.
Obama made the argument during the third episode of his new Audible series, “A Great Book with Barack Obama,” which premiered Thursday through his Higher Ground production company.
“People are always surprised when I tell them the federal government is so much less corrupt than it’s probably ever been, in terms of just pure bribes, or patronage or favors,”
The former president observed a conversation with Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jill Lepore about Robert Penn Warren’s 1946 novel “All the King’s Men.”
The Pulitzer Prize-winning novel follows the political rise and eventual downfall of Willie Stark, a fictional Southern governor whose career becomes increasingly consumed by corruption and the ruthless exercise of political power.
Obama used the book as a starting point for discussing how American politics has changed since the era when political machines routinely relied on government jobs, personal favors and other benefits to maintain power and assemble legislative coalitions.
He specifically pointed to the political environment surrounding former President Lyndon B. Johnson.
“It was interesting, as I was coming up through the state legislature, and then Congress and the presidency — you mentioned Lyndon Johnson, part of the reason that kind of cornering folks and hustling them for votes worked, it wasn’t just physical intimidation,” Obama said.
“It was like, ‘What do you need?’”
Obama argued that reforms enacted before and after the Watergate scandal dramatically reduced the ability of political leaders to operate those patronage systems.
“Part of what was interesting is that a lot of reforms that we think of as positive — pre-Watergate, post-Watergate — eliminated or greatly reduced the possibilities of maintaining those old political machines, and trading votes and doing favors,” Obama said.
But he suggested those reforms also produced an unintended consequence.
The same political tools that could be corrupt, Obama argued, sometimes allowed congressional leaders to negotiate compromises and persuade lawmakers with sharply different political views to support legislation.
“It’s part of the reason why things got a little harder to get done because that was sort of some lubrication … to help to bridge some of the ideological differences that were out there,” Obama said.
Obama’s assessment comes as Americans express extraordinarily negative views about corruption in government.
A Gallup survey released Sept. 2 found that 89% of U.S. adults believe corruption is widespread throughout government.
That is the highest percentage Gallup has recorded since it began tracking the question two decades ago.
The figure increased 10 percentage points from 2025 and stands significantly above the 72% to 79% range recorded between 2010 and 2025.
Concern also appears to be politically motivated. Gallup found that 91% of Democrats believe government corruption is widespread. The Democratic number represents a particularly dramatic shift. Only 57% of Democrats expressed that view during former President Joe Biden’s final year in office.
Currently, according to the same survey, 83% of Republicans believe corruption is widespread.
The contrast between Obama’s remarks and Gallup’s findings is striking, but the two are measuring different things.
Obama specifically limited his observation to what he called “pure bribes,” patronage and personal favors — the traditional transactional corruption associated with earlier American political machines.
Gallup asked Americans whether they believe corruption throughout government is widespread, a considerably broader question that captures public perceptions rather than documented instances of bribery.
Other polling nevertheless shows that confidence in Washington remains near historic lows.
Pew Research Center reported late last year that just 17% of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time.”
Only 2% said they trusted Washington just about always.
Public trust has declined dramatically from the late 1950s and early 1960s, when roughly three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the federal government most or nearly all of the time.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
