Demonstrators outside the U.S. Senate buildings on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., protest billionaire Elon Musk and the Trump administration's dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development on Feb. 5, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Less than three weeks into his second term, President Donald Trump and those working under his auspices — most prominently billionaire Elon Musk — are making no apologies for barreling over institutions and flouting the law.

The Trump administration’s sweeping actions tee up a major test for the guardrails Americans, red or blue, count on — fair application of the law, privacy of tax and benefit information, civil rights in schools, labor laws in the workplace.

Protests led by Democratic lawmakers, former officials and activists have popped up in the nation’s capital and around the U.S. — from Georgia to Maine to Utah, and several other states. Democrats outnumbered in the U.S. House and Senate during the past week have tried to gain attention with tactics like barging into the House speaker’s office and rallying outside agencies.

Senate Democrats gave speeches overnight Wednesday into Thursday objecting to the nomination of Project 2025 architect Russ Vought as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought was confirmed on a party-line vote, 53-47.

With opponents unable to deploy more than these limited defenses, and many powerful Republican lawmakers either shrugging or downright agreeing, the federal courts have emerged during the past weeks as the only obstacles to some of Trump’s more provocative moves. That has included the president’s orders to freeze many federal grants and loans, corner federal workers into slap-dash career decisions and outright strip the Constitution of birthright citizenship.

Casey Burgat, a George Washington University legislative affairs professor, said, “Historically, presidents are stopped when members of Congress think they’re going too far.”

“Congress could stop it today, but again, that would take Republicans signing on. The courts are probably the best option, given that Congress seems to be unwilling to do that,” Burgat said.

Republicans indeed cheered Trump along the campaign trail as he promised to stamp out diversity and inclusion, orchestrate mass deportations, maintain tax cuts for corporations, amp up tariffs and close legal immigration pathways.

The majority of Americans backed this campaign pitch. Trump handily won the Electoral College over his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and squeaked by with 49.8% of the popular vote. Voters in all seven swing states backed Trump.

That likely will leave it to the third branch of government, the courts, to determine just how much upheaval and constitutional crisis the United States can withstand — though there as well Republicans hold the upper hand, with a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

A legal tracker by the online forum Just Security as of Friday registered 37 lawsuits already lodged against the administration, beginning on Inauguration Day.

Here is a rundown of just some of the executive orders unleashed since Jan. 20 and the legal pushback:

Breaking into Americans’ data

When Trump signed an executive order on his first night in office to establish the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, he aimed to make good on his campaign promise to put the world’s richest man — and major campaign donor — Musk in charge of cutting $2 trillion in federal spending.

DOGE is not an actual department because only Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to create new government agencies. Musk, at the helm of DOGE, was not vetted or confirmed by senators.

Musk is a “special government employee,” according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who told reporters Feb. 3 that she is “not sure” of Musk’s security clearances. The White House did not respond to States Newsroom follow-up requests for terms of Musk’s special government employee status, signed ethics agreements or financial disclosures.

The White House defended Musk’s actions in a statement, saying DOGE is “fulfilling President Trump’s commitment to making government more accountable, efficient, and, most importantly, restoring proper stewardship of the American taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars. Those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities. The ongoing operations of DOGE may be seen as disruptive by those entrenched in the federal bureaucracy, who resist change. While change can be uncomfortable, it is necessary and aligns with the mandate supported by more than 77 million American voters.”

But details of Musk’s far reach across numerous federal agencies are steadily coming to light. Musk and his DOGE appointees gained access to the U.S. Treasury’s central payment system that processes everything from tax returns to Social Security benefits.

Two unions and a retirement advocacy group, together representing millions of Americans, sued Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, arguing he granted access to Americans’ personal information, including bank account and Social Security numbers, that is protected by federal privacy law.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Treasury Department to limit Musk’s access to “read only” status for just two DOGE personnel — Tom Krause, a former tech executive, and software engineer Marko Elez.

Elez resigned Thursday after the Wall Street Journal linked him to a deleted social media account that was brimming with racist statements as recently as the fall of 2024. Elez, 25, worked for Musk at SpaceX and X, according to the publication WIRED, which uncovered that Musk filled DOGE with several engineers barely out of college.

Vice President J.D. Vance advocated on X Friday for Elez’s return to DOGE. Musk agreed: “He will be brought back. To err is human, to forgive divine.” The White House did not immediately respond to States Newsroom on whether Elez will be rehired.

Gutting the feds

Within days after Trump’s inauguration, Musk’s team reportedly asked the Treasury Department to block all funds appropriated for the U.S. Agency for International Development but was denied by a top career official, according to CNN.

Musk’s team broke into the USAID’s Washington, D.C., headquarters over the weekend of Feb. 1 to access agency records. The data security personnel who tried to stop them were subsequently placed on leave.

Musk declared on his platform X: “USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.” Meanwhile, USAID’s X platform disappeared, as did its website.

Congress created the global humanitarian agency in 1961 and appropriated roughly $40 billion for its programs in 2023, according to the Congressional Research Service. The agency’s expenditures hover around 2% of all federal spending.

By Thursday, the New York Times was reporting that the Trump administration planned to keep only 290 of the agency’s approximately 10,000 employees.

Together the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees on Thursday filed suit against Trump, Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and related federal agencies for “unconstitutional and illegal actions” that have “systematically dismantled” USAID.

“These actions have generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors. They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests,” the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

A federal district judge temporarily blocked the USAID layoffs late Friday.

The turmoil at USAID also came amid targeted threats at the Department of Justice.

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents sued Tuesday to keep their identities secret after acting deputy Attorney General Emil Bove — who last year represented Trump in his case against the DOJ — requested records of all agents who were involved in investigating Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, according to the Wall Street Journal.

‘Fork in the road’

Employees across nearly every federal agency — now including the intelligence communities — received an email beginning Jan. 28 titled “Fork in the Road.”

The offer, bearing the same subject line as the memo Musk sent to Twitter employees in 2022, contained a “deferred resignation” for federal employees who preferred not to return to the office in-person full-time and abide by new pillars that include being “reliable, loyal, trustworthy.”

The offer promised full pay and benefits until Sept. 30 with hardly any obligation to continue working. Employees were told they had until Feb. 6 to decide.

A federal judge extended the deadline after four large government employee unions sued, arguing the offer is “arbitrary and capricious in numerous respects.”

In just one example, the lawsuit points out, Congress’ temporary funding package for most federal agencies expires March 14, causing questions about whether deferred resignation paychecks are guaranteed.

“I think there’s real uncertainty that they can promise that the money to pay the salaries is actually going to be available,” said Molly Reynolds, an expert in congressional appropriations at the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

Pause on grants and loans

While federal employees wonder about their livelihoods, state and local governments, early childhood schools and numerous social safety net nonprofits were sent into panic when the Trump administration announced it planned to freeze trillions in federal grants and loans.

The Jan. 27 memo from the OMB set off widespread confusion over which programs would face the cut, including questions over whether millions could lose services through community health centers, Head Start, low-income home heating assistance funds —  and anything else for which Congress has appropriated funds, for example, small business loans.

A federal judge in Rhode Island blocked the order on Jan. 31, making clear that a law on the books since 1974 gives the president a legal pathway to ask Congress to rescind funds that have already been allocated and signed into law.

“Here, there is no evidence that the Executive has followed the law by notifying Congress and thereby effectuating a potentially legally permitted so-called ‘pause,’” Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island wrote in the 13-page ruling.

Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse,” and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act governs how the executive branch can challenge funding.

Trump’s newly installed OMB director, Vought, has repeatedly argued the 1974 law is unconstitutional.

Reynolds told States Newsroom that power of the purse is the “biggest remaining sort of bulwark of congressional power and congressional authority.”

“In addition to a number of these things being potentially illegal on an individual level, overall, we’re just in this world where, depending on how things unfold, we are in for a really profound rebalancing of power between Congress and the presidency,” Reynolds said.

Another stab at the Constitution

As Trump’s second Inauguration Day stretched into the evening, he signed a flurry of immigration-related executive orders and some are already facing legal challenges.

The president’s order to end the constitutional right of citizenship under the 14th Amendment by redefining birthright citizenship has been met with a nationwide injunction.

“Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country. That law and tradition are and will remain the status quo pending the resolution of this case,” wrote Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

House Republicans, separately, introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship, and welcomed legal challenges to the measure in the hopes that it heads to the Supreme Court, where Trump has picked three of the six conservative justices.

Another executive order, which declared an “invasion” at the southern border and has effectively shut down the ability for immigrants without legal status to claim asylum, is being challenged in a major lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Can the president root out diversity?

Since Inauguration Day, Trump has issued several orders aimed at limiting options at school, work and the doctor’s office for particular groups of Americans.

He campaigned on a vision to “save American education,” and end DEI and “gender ideology extremism.”

Not even 24 hours after the first major tragedy of his presidency — the Jan. 29 midair collision between an Army helicopter and commercial airliner — Trump pointed his finger at diversity, equity and inclusion as the cause. The president blamed the deadly crash at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that killed 67 on diversity hires, singling out people with disabilities. 

On Feb. 5 he issued an executive order that bars transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams consistent with their gender identity. The effort — which aims to deny federal funds for schools that do not comply — is sure to face legal challenges.

Other orders are already facing lawsuits.

Trump’s pledge to “keep men out of women’s sports” reflects only part of his broader anti-trans agenda. He took significant steps in January via executive orders to prohibit openly transgender service members from the U.S. military and restrict access to gender-affirming care for kids.

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown sued the Trump administration Feb. 7 for its late January order that cuts federal funding to hospitals or medical schools that provide gender-related care for transgender children and young adults that the order defines as age 19 and under.

Trump is also facing multiple lawsuits from active U.S. troops, and those seeking to join, over an order banning openly transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. 

Per Trump’s order on Jan. 27, “[A]doption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

Six transgender service members argued in a complaint filed Jan. 28 that Trump’s order “invokes no study of the effectiveness of transgender service members over the past four years, of their ability to serve, or of their integrity and selflessness in volunteering to serve their country, and the directive’s stated rationale is refuted by substantial research and testimony, as well as by years of capable and honorable service by transgender service members without issue.”

Ariana Figueroa, Jennifer Shutt and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. Seated at the table are Detective Joseph Mensah (left) and Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police President Ryan Windorff (right) (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“Baseless,” “false allegations,” and “meant to harass” were phrases used by Republican senators and police groups to describe what they called the “abuse” of Wisconsin’s John Doe law to exact vengeance on police officers who were involved in fatal incidents. 

“Activists have discovered that the John Doe process itself can be the punishment they seek against innocent law enforcement officers in our community,” said Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) during a Thursday afternoon hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. 

It was the second time Hutton has introduced a bill taking aim at Wisconsin’s John Doe law. The law, which applies to a wide range of crimes, allows a judge to review cases in which prosecutors have declined to file charges. A judge then decides whether probable cause for a crime exists. If so, then the judge may appoint special prosecutors to consider whether charges are needed. Hutton’s bill seeks to limit the law’s use against officers involved in fatal shootings. 

Hutton, calling the the law “archaic,” said that it’s “being often used with more frequency against police officers.” Any person or group can file a complaint with a court and request the initiation of a John Doe process, he said. If passed, Hutton’s bill would prevent the John Doe law from being used in cases where there is no new or “unused” evidence and where prosecutors already decided that a officer acted in self-defense.

Although Hutton didn’t clarify what might count as “new” or “unused” evidence, he did talk at length about his conversations with police officers. The senator described going on ride-alongs and watching officers respond to domestic violence calls, “legally going 90 miles per hour” to respond to emergencies, and how disrespected and criticized officers often felt. Hutton described having conversations with officers who said they felt more “timid” and feared being charged for something like a fatal shooting. Many officers, Hutton said, are leaving the job at a time when some agencies struggle with understaffing. 

Hutton said that two recent John Doe hearings involving police shootings have further damaged morale. A 2021 hearing reviewed the shooting of 25-year-old Jay Anderson Jr. by then-Wauwatosa Police officer Joseph Mensah. In 2016 Anderson, who was sleeping in his car in a park late at night when Mensah approached him, was the second person Mensah had fatally shot within a year. Over his five-year career at Wauwatosa PD Mensah was involved in three fatal shootings. Anderson, who Mensah said was reaching for a gun when he shot him, was the only person Mensah’s shot whose killing triggered a John Doe hearing. 

Another John Doe hearing in 2023 looked into the killing of Tony Robinson by Madison Police officer Matthew Kenny. The 19-year-old was killed in his apartment after officers responded to reports that he was acting erratically. His family was awarded a $3.3 million settlement in 2017, the largest for a police shooting in Wisconsin history at the time. 

Neither of the John Doe hearings succeeded, however. Although probable cause was found in Mensah’s case for homicide by negligent use of a dangerous weapon, special prosecutors declined to pursue charges. A judge declined to continue with Kenny’s case. Hutton referred to both hearings as a growing problem, but the Mensah and Kenny cases were the only two the senator and police lobbyists said they were aware of. Hutton pointed to Mensah, who attended the Thursday hearing to offer testimony, as the inspiration for the bill to limit John Doe proceedings. 

Other Republicans on the committee appeared supportive of changing the John Doe law. Sen. Andre Jacque (R- DePere) likened its use to “attacks on qualified immunity” for police, and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) — committee chairman and a former police officer — as well as Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), another law enforcement official, and police lobbyists, stressed that officers need to be able to act without hesitation. 

Committee Democrats, however, were not sold. Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee), questioned the imbalance of power within the criminal justice system that the bill could create, and wondered whether Hutton had talked to representatives of the State Bar of Wisconsin, which is opposed to the bill. Hutton said he had not. Hutton described those bringing John Doe cases against officers as seeking to “demonize someone in law enforcement.” Whereas the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin and the Civil Rights and Liberties Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin registered against the bill, two Wisconsin police associations and the State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police registered in support. 

Under the microscope 

Mensah’s shooting of Anderson was investigated by the Milwaukee Police Department before the John Doe. Their investigation in 2016 was reviewed by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, who declined to charge Mensah. A separate civil rights review, and internal Wauwatosa PD review, were also conducted. In 2020, an independent investigator also found that Mensah had violated multiple department policies when he did a radio show interview. Hutton called the use of the John Doe law against police officers as “a gap that needs to be sown up and closed.” 

After the hearing was over, Hutton told Wisconsin Examiner that although he’s talked extensively with police officers and their families, that he has not spoken with family members of anyone killed by police, such as those in Mensah’s shootings. “I haven’t heard from any of them,” Hutton said of the Anderson family and other relatives of those killed by Mensah. “I would love to have conversations with any of them in that regard, I have not had any conversation with them at this point.” 

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said that she was “troubled by the callousness” of the discussion of Hutton’s bill. Roys said police officers and the people they kill, as well as the family members of the deceased, are victims of a tragic situation. “You have to have accountability,” said Roys. “People need to be able to trust law enforcement.” Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) pointed out that John Doe hearings involving police officers are infrequent. 

Ryan Windorff, president of the Wisconsin Order of Police, called the allegations made during John Doe hearings “baseless.” Windorff said the hearings came into vogue after what he called an “anti-police movement” which had “infected” the country. Windorff said investigations are transparent, and that while families have rights, those rights do not “usurp” the ability of police officers to defend themselves. 

Mensah also testified at the hearing. In 2020, Mensah resigned from the Wauwatosa PD after being suspended by the Police and Fire Commission. He was later hired by the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department, where he said he underwent “a unique hiring process.” Besides a background check, the sheriff and Defensive and Arrest Tactics (DAAT) experts did their own review, which he passed. Nevertheless, Mensah said that other agencies had been unwilling to  hire him because of “publicly-made…available information.” He added that the only public information besides police reports is the news, about which he said, “they have their right, they can be biased if they want.”

Mensah described the investigations and scrutiny after his three fatal shootings as “a constant drain.” He said that a John Doe proceeding could be brought “literally for anything,” and that he lives knowing that he could be charged with a crime any day. Mensah said police “aren’t granted the same protections and the same benefit of the doubt, or anything.”

“Unfortunately now, the way the law is written, the scale is heavily not in our favor,” said Mensah. 

He also took aim at the protests that focused on him in 2020 and 2021. Mensah said he didn’t understand why protesters demonstrated at the home of the woman he has since married and his parents’ house, chanting Black Lives Matter when he is a Black officer himself. “My race was completely stripped from me. I was no longer considered Black. I was considered just an officer,” he said. 

The protests and hearings were difficult to explain to his family and kids, Mensah added. “There’s been clear civil rights violations against myself, no one cares,” said Mensah. “No one cares when it’s violations against my children. No one cares when it’s violations against my wife.” Mensah’s wife, whose maiden name is Patricia Swayka, is a former Milwaukee police officer. In 2024, she appeared on a “Brady list” of officers with problematic histories obtained by TMJ4 through records requests. 

Mensah added that “this has been just a cold, calculated process of just harassing me, harassing my family, and using this law to take advantage of it. And there needs to be some type of change before it happens to someone else.” 

Mensah talked about a protest outside his house that escalated into a confrontation, in which a protester brought a gun and fired it. Several protesters were arrested for the incident, and three were charged with either handling, firing, or transporting a shotgun. Wauwatosa PD, the FBI, and Milwaukee PD specialized units all helped investigate the incident. 

During the hearing, Mensah said that the judge in his John Doe hearing “got it wrong” and that “the system as we have it is flawed, and people are using it not to get justice, but to get revenge. And specifically revenge against me.” Mensah said that he used to be a “very proactive” officer, and that Anderson’s shooting occurred when he was more proactive on the job. 

Mensah told the Senate committee “I did not have a chance to defend myself,” during the John Doe hearings. “Anytime something was brought up, I couldn’t question it.” According to court filings from the hearing, however, Mensah pleaded the Fifth Amendment, since he was subject to criminal charges. After the Senate committee hearing when asked about this, Mensah said “I honestly don’t remember.” He told Wisconsin Examiner that “I was instructed that we weren’t allowed to say anything in that hearing.” Mensah vaguely recalled “some mention of it”, referring to his Fifth Amendment pleading. “I honestly don’t remember if I did, or if there was questions about what if it got to a certain point.” 

 

19 – Brief in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena of Joseph Mensah

 

When asked how the Anderson shooting was misrepresented by Anderson’s family and their lawyers, Mensah recalled people saying “I shot him 13 times in the back,” which wasn’t correct. Elsewhere Mensah saw people mistaking his ethnicity. “I get it…You can only report what you know…What you’re told, what you find out. Some stuff’s true, some stuff isn’t. Some stuff’s intentional, some stuff’s not. I can’t say what isn’t intentional, and what’s not. At the same time, it’s kind of like in law enforcement, if I’m interviewing someone and they tell me something, I can only take that at face value and put it forward.”

Asked whether he felt that his career in the Waukesha Sheriff’s Department had been negatively affected, he said, “All I know is I applied for the detective position, I got it. I applied for a lieutenant position, didn’t get that.” 

“In some ways I’ve been promoted, in some ways I haven’t,” he said. 

Democratic Sens. Johnson and Drake expressed skepticism in comments after the hearing.

Johnson compared the John Doe bill to Republican efforts to impose stricter regulations  on bail and parole, arguing that judges need more authority to keep violent offenders incarcerated. Yet Hutton’s John Doe bill, she pointed out, takes away discretion and power from judges. 

“It really boils down to who we decide are victims,” said Drake.

Clarification: This article has been updated to reflect that the Civil Rights and Liberties Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin, not the State Bar as a whole, registered against the bill to end John Doe proceedings against police officers.

Flags are draped on the North Portico of the White House, Sunday, Sept. 11, 2022, to commemorate September 11, 2001. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

WASHINGTON — The confirmations for President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks are moving at warp speed, with U.S. Senate floor votes for some and appearances for others before Senate panels this week.

Trump’s Cabinet members will be crucial to carrying out his sweeping GOP agenda, which already started bursting out of the floodgates in wide-ranging executive orders the president began signing shortly after taking the oath of office Jan. 20. 

Last week, the U.S. Senate confirmed: Marco Rubio as secretary of State; John Ratcliffe as CIA director; Pete Hegseth as Defense secretary; and former South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as Homeland Security secretary.

In a historic vote, Vice President J.D. Vance had to step in Friday to break a tie after Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voted against their GOP colleagues to reject Hegseth.

Hegseth, a veteran and former Fox News host, has taken heat for allegations surrounding sexual misconduct, alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement.

But things could get even more dicey this week in the narrowly GOP-controlled Senate, as multiple Cabinet picks set to testify have raised eyebrows among senators on both sides of the aisle.

Here’s a look at what to expect this week among Trump’s Cabinet picks:

Monday

The U.S. Senate voted Monday night — 68-29 — to make Scott Bessent the next Treasury secretary.  The South Carolinian and hedge fund manager sailed through his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

The Senate also voted 97-0 to advance the nomination of former Wisconsin GOP U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy to serve as Transportation secretary.

More votes may be scheduled through the rest of the week. 

Wednesday

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, will appear before the Senate Committee on Finance.

The environmental lawyer, who has amplified anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, dropped his long-shot independent presidential bid before backing Trump.

Howard Lutnick, Trump’s nominee for Commerce secretary, will appear before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. If confirmed, the billionaire businessman will be pivotal in carrying out Trump’s policies on tariffs.

Kelly Loeffler, the former U.S. senator from Georgia tapped to lead the Small Business Administration, will testify in front of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will determine whether to move Pam Bondi’s nomination to lead the Department of Justice to the full floor. Bondi is the former attorney general of Florida.

Thursday

Some of Trump’s most contentious picks are sure to take heat from senators later this week.

Kash Patel, Trump’s choice to lead the FBI, will appear Thursday before the Senate Judiciary panel. The staunch Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist previously served in the Justice Department as a federal prosecutor.

Kennedy will also face a second panel of senators Thursday — this time in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The committee shares jurisdiction over the nomination with Finance.

Meanwhile, former Hawaii U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard will sit before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as she aims to be the director of national intelligence.

Gabbard is perhaps Trump’s most vulnerable nominee. She has faced criticism for her views on foreign policy and meeting with the ousted Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. She’s also faced accusations of amplifying Russian propaganda.

The Senate Budget panel will also vote on whether to move Russ Vought’s nomination to again lead the Office of Management and Budget to the full floor.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will also vote Thursday on whether to advance New York U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik’s bid to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to the full floor. 

The J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building is seen on Jan. 28, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The decade-long endeavor to move the Federal Bureau of Investigation out of its crumbling headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., and into a new facility outside the city could face roadblocks next year.

President-elect Donald Trump and some of his top allies in Congress have rebuked the federal agency that undertook the search for a new suburban location, ultimately deciding on Greenbelt, Maryland, over two other options.

Once Trump is back in the Oval Office and the GOP controls both chambers of Congress, the funding stream for the General Services Administration to build the new facility could end.

Republican lawmakers could also require the GSA to restart the search process, change the criteria the federal agency used to select the Greenbelt location, or simply tell the agency it must construct the new headquarters in a different location. Other options floated by GOP lawmakers include Alabama and somewhere inside the District of Columbia. Or they could require GSA to build the new FBI headquarters in either Springfield, Virginia, or Landover, Maryland — the other two locations considered for the new building.

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the spending panel that controls GSA’s budget, told States Newsroom he believes the issue is settled, in part, because some funding has already been allocated for the project.

“We’re going to work very hard to make sure we keep the program on track,” Van Hollen said. “I think there’s a consensus that the FBI’s current headquarters does not meet the security requirements, does not meet the other requirements. So, you know, from our perspective, a decision has been made and we will work hard to make sure it’s executed, implemented.”

Construction funding

Congress approved $200 million for the headquarters project this spring as part of a much larger government spending package.

Beyond that, funding is less certain.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, controlled by Democrats, has proposed $375 million for construction in this year’s GSA spending bill. That measure, which includes numerous other funding proposals, received bipartisan support during a committee vote. In January, control of the Senate will flip to the GOP.

The House version of the bill, drafted by Republicans, doesn’t include any funding for a new FBI headquarters and would require the GSA to send Congress “a detailed plan and timeline to support the District of Columbia based personnel by keeping the current FBI headquarters operational or identifying another Federally owned location in the District of Columbia that can serve as the FBI headquarters building.”

The two chambers will likely negotiate a final, bicameral version of the bill during the first few months of next year, once the GOP holds unified control of Congress and the White House. 

Trump hotel

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said during an interview he hadn’t really thought about whether his state could become the new site for the FBI headquarters.

“If you just go by history, Trump didn’t want to put any money into a new FBI headquarters,” Kaine said. “He didn’t want that block that the FBI is on to be cleared and opened for a hotel that might compete with his own hotel. So four years of the Trump administration was him basically doing everything he could to stop a move and to stop funds being used for the move.

“Now he may not have the same financial interest that he had back then so I bet it’s hard to say.”

Trump owned a hotel in the old Post Office building along Pennsylvania Avenue during his first term in office, but it was later sold and is now a Waldorf Astoria. The building is about one block away from the current FBI headquarters.

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the top Democrat on the House panel that funds the GSA, told States Newsroom there’s “no doubt” the Greenbelt location “is the best site, both in terms of security and in terms of finances.”

“I’m going to continue to push that position,” Hoyer said. “We need to get this done for the FBI, for the American people. The building is literally falling down. And the fact that we have delayed this … is testament that we’ve escalated cost, decreased security for the federal employees at FBI, and we ought to move on. And hopefully we will.”

The Maryland and Virginia governors’ offices declined to comment for this article. A GSA representative, speaking on background, said the agency has submitted a report to Congress that was required by the spending package lawmakers approved in March 2022.

GSA, the person said, is trying to secure “resolutions” from congressional committees before it obligates funds to buy the site or begin design and construction activities. They said this is consistent with other large-scale development projects that require congressional approval. It was not clear what those resolutions would say.

Evaluation of selection process continues

The GSA has been under review by its inspector general for how it undertook the site selection process for more than a year, one factor that could potentially complicate things during unified Republican control of Washington.

GSA acting Inspector General Robert Erickson launched an evaluation into the agency’s process in November 2023, a few weeks after GSA announced its decision to pick the Greenbelt, Maryland, location.

That evaluation is ongoing, and the inspector general continues “to work thoroughly and expeditiously on the project,” according to a spokesperson.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner told States Newsroom in a brief interview he’s waiting to see the inspector general’s evaluation before deciding on a path forward.

“I know people thought that it might come out in the spring. It didn’t,” Warner said. “The reports we’ve got is that they’re still doing the investigating, and let’s see what that says first.”

Hoyer said he doesn’t expect the results of that evaluation will affect moving the FBI headquarters to Greenbelt.

“I think everything was done absolutely as it should have been,” Hoyer said. “An argument was made by both sides in public on the merits of their sites.”

Debate over process

FBI Director Christopher Wray also questioned the decision last year, writing in a letter to employees that he and others held “concerns about the fairness and transparency in the process,” though he wrote those “concerns are not with the decision itself but with the process.”

Trump has announced he will name Kash Patel as head of the FBI, though Wray would have to be fired or quit first. Trump has not yet named someone to lead the GSA.

The Greenbelt decision brought about some bipartisanship in Congress, with House Oversight & Accountability Committee Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat, urging GSA to conduct a full investigation into the site selection process. 

The two said the most disturbing aspect to them was that then-GSA Commissioner of the Public Building Service Nina Albert “overturned the unanimous site decision of an expert panel of civil servants representing GSA and its agency client, the FBI.”

Albert left that role on Oct. 13, 2023, about a month before the final decision was announced. General Services Administrator Robin Carnahan had also said two years earlier Albert didn’t have a conflict of interest.

“Congress created GSA in 1949 to increase the efficiency and economy of federal government operations — not least the procurement and use of property,” Comer and Connolly wrote in their letter. “To fulfill that mission, GSA must be fair and transparent in its operations. Its real estate dealings should consider only what is best for taxpayers and the Nation. It must set aside political or parochial interests.”

Comer and Connolly added they were “deeply concerned that GSA’s choice of a new FBI headquarters site departed from those principles — and in doing so, failed to put taxpayers and the public interest first.”