FACT: Transparency International: U.S. government perceived as increasingly corrupt
THE NUMBERS: U.S. worldwide ranking in Transparency International’s annual “Corruption Perceptions Index”* –
| 2025 |
29 |
| 2015 |
16 |
| 2005 |
17 |
| 1995 |
15 |
* The 2025 Index places the U.S 29th among 182 countries and territories. By comparison, the U.S. placed 16th among 180 in the 2015 Index, and 15th among 159 in the 2005 Index. The 1995 edition was the first and had only 41 countries and territories.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
From the D.C. Circuit Court opinion a week ago Friday, quashing the Trump administration’s attempt to indict Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell:
“The case asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will. On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts.”
The subpoenas (ostensibly about renovation costs for the Fed’s D.C. headquarters, but really, the Court concludes, an attempt to coerce the Fed on interest rate policy) are — or “were,” assuming the opinion holds — one in a series of Justice Department attempts to charge prominent administration opponents and critics. Other recent ones include Fed Governor Lisa Cook, six Members of Congress, ex-FBI head James Comey, and the New York Attorney General. So far, all have failed. They’re probably leaving a mark on America’s reputation, though. One way to judge this –
Each spring since 1995, the international corruption-monitoring NGO Transparency International has published a “Corruption Perceptions Index,” which ranks most of the world’s governments for perceived corruption. Their Index uses 13 international surveys done by academics, consultancies, international organizations, and other up-close observers of government, each asking about various forms of corruption: bribery, officials using their jobs for personal gain (including political as well as financial), whistle-blower protection, crony capitalism (“state capture by narrow vested interests”), and so on. The collated survey results produce a country’s “corruption perception score,” ranging from a theoretically most corrupt “zero” score to the cleanest possible governance at 100. The current method, yielding comparable numbers over time, goes back to 2012. Its highest-ever scores were the “91” ratings for Denmark and New Zealand in the mid-2010s, and its lowest was last year’s “8” for South Sudan.
TI’s releases are rarely upbeat. The newest, out last month and covering the year 2025, is especially gloomy:
“The global order is under strain from rivalry among major powers, and dangerous disregard for international norms. Armed conflicts and the climate crisis are having a deadly impact. Societies are also becoming more polarised. To meet these challenges, the world needs principled leaders and strong independent institutions that act with integrity to protect the public interest. Yet too often, we are seeing a failure of good government and accountable leadership. In many places, leaders point to security, economic or geopolitical issues as reasons to centralise power, sideline checks and roll back commitments to internationally agreed standards — including anti-corruption measures. Too often, they treat transparency, independent scrutiny and accountability to the public as optional.”
This Index edition covers 182 governments, and puts Denmark, Finland, and Singapore at the top with respective “scores” of 89, 88, and 84. Venezuela, Somalia, and South Sudan are at the bottom, with 10, 9, and 9; South Africa, Trinidad, and Vietnam define the middle at 41. To select a bright spot, TI credits 11 countries with steady improvement over time: Estonia, Korea, Bhutan, and Seychelles as building from relatively good starting positions, and Albania, Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, Laos, Senegal, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan as rising steadily from lower initial scores. Their view of the U.S., though, is bleak. Not only is the American government’s image eroding, they say, but its recent policy choices are having systemic impacts beyond American borders:
“The United States sustained its slide to its lowest-ever score. While the full impact of 2025 developments are not yet reflected, recent actions, such as targeting independent voices and undermining judicial independence, raise serious concerns. Beyond the CPI findings, the temporary freeze and weakening of enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act signal tolerance for corrupt business practices, while cuts to U.S. aid to overseas civil society have weakened global anti-corruption practices.”
Statistically, the U.S. scored 64, and tied with the Bahamas for 29th. For historical context, during the Obama administration from 2012 to 2016, the American score averaged 74 (with a peak of 76 in 2015), and U.S. rankings varied from 19th to 15th. For contemporary comparisons, the 2025 Index puts the U.S. 23rd among the 38 OECD countries, down from 16th in 2015; fourth in the Western Hemisphere, down from second and below Canada, Uruguay, and Barbados; and sixth in the G-7, down from fourth.
The Powell case and its cousins no doubt help to explain this. But to end on a hopeful note, their implications for corruption in American government are complex. The attempt to coerce the Federal Reserve Board through subpoenas is an obvious indicator of deteriorating governance. On the other hand, the Fed’s determination to continue making monetary policy based on careful evaluation of the economic evidence, and the Court’s ruling on the subpoenas, both represent important areas in which personal integrity and the rule of law remain the norm in American public life. They suggest that though TI’s analysts have reason for gloom, this battle isn’t yet lost.
FURTHER READING
PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:
- Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
- Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
- Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
- Offer a positive alternative.
Fed Chair Powell’s video comment on the Trump admin.’s subpoenas.
And the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling.
Big picture:
Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perception Index, with links to the archived Indexes from 1995 through 2024.
… The methodology and indicators.
… The sources.
… And the Index’s very pessimistic look at the western hemisphere — “the Americas show no progress in the fight against corruption” — with especially strong words for the United States, and notes on deteriorating environments in El Salvador and Ecuador. TI does, though, commend the Dominican Republic and Guyana for an improving landscape.
ABOUT ED
Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.
Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
