Nobel Prize winner pinpoints 'seriously corrupt practice' going unnoticed in Trump admin

A Nobel Prize winner has pinpointed a concerning practice that is currently underway in part of Donald Trump's administration.

Between the cost of living crisis, war with Iran, and the slow release of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's files, the issues found in other parts of the admin have fallen through the cracks. But economist Paul Krugman says one move from the Defense Department is telling of how the Trump team will conduct themselves with businesses whose aims and views do not align with the current administration.

Writing in his Substack, Krugman suggested there is a particular worry over how government contracts are issued. He wrote, "Second, denying government contracts to a company because the administration doesn’t like that company’s politics is a seriously corrupt practice.

"Think of it as the flip side of crony capitalism: while throwing taxpayer dollars at companies it considers friends — especially because they personally enrich members of the administration or the president’s family — the administration is freezing out companies it considers enemies.

"If this practice becomes the norm, as it surely will if these people remain in power, it will waste money because the government is denying contracts to vendors who offer the best value but aren’t sufficiently MAGA. It will also further corrupt our politics, as businesses feel the need to be demonstratively pro-Trump if they want federal contracts."

Krugman went on to claim that admin heads, particularly Pete Hegseth, had caused undue trouble for the department. He wrote, "Finally, the Defense Department is now doing exactly what people like Hegseth have always accused supporters of DEI of doing — refusing to hire the best people for the job, refusing to give contracts to the best suppliers, in the name of political correctness.

"The Pentagon’s managers and tech experts clearly believe that Claude is the best tool for many purposes, but they have been ordered not to use it because their political masters don’t like the company’s politics.

"Imagine the reaction if the roles of the parties were reversed — if a Democratic administration were denying the U.S. military the tools it wants to use because it considered the company supplying those tools too conservative. Republicans wouldn’t just be protesting; they’d be screaming 'treason.'"