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".¹This 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.¹¹Furthermore, 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.¹⁸Alongside 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.²⁵Challenging 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

Continue reading here (due to post length constraints): https://p4sc4l.substack.com/p/this-report-systematically-examines