The previous administration had stronger language (no lobbying whatsoever) and a 1 year ban. So Trump extended the timespan, and poked the ban full of loopholes.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer...
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea...
Honestly, this isn't hard to see. Just look at EPA, DOE, FERC... Trump is stacking our agencies with industry executives and lobbyists hostile to these agencies' charters, and in some cases their very existence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/top-ethics-of...
If he were to resign and leak secret information, he'd be in legal trouble, yes?
Note: This is not meant to be read as approval, just a bit of contention at the language used.
> But Mr. Trump has chosen to keep the waivers secret. He dropped a practice, in place during the Obama administration, that any waiver would be shared with the Office of Government Ethics and posted on the White House website or the ethics office’s website, or on both.
It certainly wasn't "top secret" in the classified sense but it was done with secrecy as if he had something to hide regarding the practice or, perhaps a more charitable reading was that he was ignorant of the precedent. From hiding the wh visitor logs to the ethics waivers to stopping the recording inside the wh press briefing room in my view they are actively trying to be less transparent in their dealings.
Secret, as a word, implies intent - at least to me. It may also imply legality. While certainly worthy of raising an eyebrow, I'm not sure we can make accurate claims of intent?
Ah well, it's largely immaterial. I do thank you for taking the time to explain.
Trump was eventually forced to back down and the waivers were released, revealing such swampy critters as Michael Catanzaro and Shahira Knight [1].
EDIT: So, "secret" in a more colloquial sense than the technical "classified" definition.
0 - http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lobbyist-ban-cabinet-wa...
1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/us/politics/lobbyist-ethi...
In particular, it's useful to draw a line pre- and post-USSR, as that was a sea change in executive policy. That means Bush 1 / Clinton onward. Other common markers are pre/post Great Society, pre/post WW2, pre/post New Deal, etc.
I guess the use is valid, but I'm not sure it's objective. I don't prefer Trump, but I do try to remain objective. Try being the operative word.
EX: Huge gang's may have secret handshakes.
This seems like a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Ignoring the question of what percentage of senior people have left due to being fired, the potential for legal cases against them, inability to personally pay for anticipated legal expenses, or some combination thereof, there's also the fact that it's still early in the Trump administration.
The bigger factor is likely the massive number of (former?) lobbyists being hired into positions of influence. In fact, it seems that the lobbying ban you pointed to also removed a lot of restrictions that had been in place [1], and that there's been both noticeable granting of waivers and significant resistance to releasing information on those waivers [2].
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-eth...
You are mistaken if you believe that is a campaign promise he actually kept.
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15723994/trump-ethics-waivers
> But he immediately began to staff the administration with people whose work seemed, on its face, to clearly violate the terms of the order. Rather than publicly grant waivers of ethics rules with a clearly stated rationale, the White House was simply routinely waiving ethics rules in secret so nobody knew how many waivers were issued or for what purpose.
> Trump has finally provided documentation, and it shows that the ethics rules are plainly meaningless. He’s granted five times as many waivers in his first four months in office as Obama did, which cover key figures in the administration like Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counselor Kellyanne Conway. All told, 17 waivers were granted to members of the White House staff, and we still have no idea how many waivers have been granted for other executive branch agencies or whether anyone is even keeping track.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea...
> Trump's ethics pledge, issued as an executive order on Saturday, includes a five-year "lobbying ban" that falls short of its name, preventing officials from lobbying the agency they worked in for five years after they leave, but allowing them to lobby other parts of the government.
It is the weakest "lobbying ban" since Bush Jr.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...
Obviously targeting lobbying is an improvement, but it's not enough.
And also, I'm wondering how that impacts a not-for-profit that a politician decides to champion after retirement... Is that "lobbying"?