During President Donald Trump’s campaign, he often repeated his promise to “Drain the Swamp.” It meant a pledge to, as he put it, “make our government honest again.” Now, with growing allegations of corruption against EPA director Scott Pruitt, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Trump to keep this promise while keeping Pruitt in his job.

In a cabinet so marred with incidents of over- and improper spending—Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson’s $31,000 dining set or former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price’s private flights, among others—Mr. Pruitt’s dubious ‘shopping list’ is especially long and expensive. Each item makes it clear why President Trump should get him as far away as possible from his administration.

First, there is his extensive use of commercial jets for government travel, usually in business or first class. Except in extremely rare circumstances, federal guidelines require employees to fly coach. In an interview, Mr. Pruitt blamed “a very toxic environment politically” for the additional security that necessitated the move to first class.

While the first-class purchases are simply overspending for questionable reasons, there are other items that veer sharply into corruption territory. For six months, Pruitt used a Washington, D.C. apartment owned in part by lobbyists Viki and J. Steven Hart. Pruitt paid only $50 a night for nights he spent there, totalling $6,100. Apartments in D.C. usually rent for much more than that, raising questions as to how Mr. Pruitt was getting those discount rates. During this period, the EPA approved an oil pipeline expansion by Enbridge, Inc., a Canadian energy company. The company was represented by the very same lobbyists who rented their apartment to Mr. Puritt. While this coincidence doesn’t provide proof for a direct connection between the apartment and the approved project, it certainly creates a conflict of interest scenario that Pruitt should have known to avoid.

Not only has Pruitt bent or broken the rules of his office, he has also reassigned or demoted those who told him to stay in line. When several senior EPA officials voiced concerns about Pruitt’s spending, some were placed on administrative leave. Additionally, when he requested to use police sirens when stuck in D.C. traffic, his request was denied by the agent in charge of his security. That agent was later reassigned. If Mr. Pruitt cannot handle criticism over personal spending issues, how is he supposed to handle criticism over major policy decisions?

These instances paint a troubling picture of Mr. Pruitt. He has time and time again bent finance and conflict of interest rules. He does not listen to those that tell him to stop. These qualities make him look like a member of the “Swamp” that President Trump is so enthusiastic about draining. If the President really wants to clear Washington of corruption, Scott Pruitt has no place in his cabinet.