TALLAHASSEE, Florida — The state’s Republican-controlled Legislature is considering whether to steer taxpayer money to a nonprofit organization — with a politically connected leader — whose name surfaced in the House probe against Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick.

The South Florida Democrat last week was found guilty of numerous ethics violations by a bipartisan subcommittee of the House Ethics panel, a move that could lead to her potential expulsion. She has denied all wrongdoing.

The main allegations centered on whether Cherfilus-McCormick improperly funneled millions to her congressional campaign. But a January report from the Office of Congressional Conduct showed that the review also looked at federal funding that went to a foundation led by Freddie Figgers, a telecommunications executive from Broward County with ties to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The office was reviewing in part whether Cherfilus-McCormick requested money for a community project that went to a for-profit entity in a possible violation of House rules; the final list of violations adopted by the subcommittee did not cite this.

A January report from that office highlighted $2.2 million that went in 2022 to the Figgers Foundation to purchase tablets that would be provided to senior citizens and children with disabilities in Cherfilus-McCormick’s district.

During the recently concluded regular legislative session in Tallahassee, Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate requested money for the Figgers Foundation for a tablet program. The Senate budget included $350,000 for the program, while the House budget had a $1 million appropriation. Two years ago, the tablet program got a $500,000 appropriation from the Legislature.

The report from the Office of Congressional Conduct looked at whether the tablets and the software were products of for-profit companies run by Figgers and whether the program was designed to create future customers for his telecommunications network. The January report also questioned campaign donations to Cherfilus-McCormick from Figgers and his family members, as well money her congressional office spent on constituent messaging services with Figgers Enterprises. The report states that a witness told investigators that shortly after Cherfilus-McCormick assumed office in 2022, she asked a staffer to reach out to Figgers about funding for community projects and that she wanted him to submit a request.

Cherfilus-McCormick’s office did not respond to questions about the tablet program. When asked for comments, the Figgers Foundation responded with a statement from Lee Bentley, a Tampa attorney who serves as legal counsel for the organization.

He said that “Mr. Figgers did not profit from Congressional funding, and he certainly did not make political donations to secure federal monies.” Blue Light News previously reported that individuals or political action committees with Figgers Communications donated $19,800 to Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign during the 2024 cycle, according to OpenSecrets.

Bentley said “the House Ethics Committee report is replete with factual errors; furthermore, language in the report stating that Mr. and Mrs. Figgers were uncooperative is categorically false. Mr. and Mrs. Figgers agreed to be interviewed, answered all questions posed to them, and produced all subpoenaed documents within their possession.”

Bentley also said that “the charitable program at issue was woefully underfunded, and Mr. Figgers made a significant personal donation to complete its work. The program ultimately served 5,000 families in need of tablets to meet their healthcare needs.”

The chief of staff and chief counsel for the House Ethics Committee had no comment on Bentley’s statement.

Figgers, whose mother abandoned him when he was a baby and who grew up in the north Florida town of Quincy, has long-running ties to DeSantis and accompanied him on an economic development trip to Japan shortly before the governor mounted his unsuccessful run for president. DeSantis appointed him in 2023 to the state Commission on Ethics, but Figgers was forced to step down from that position after the Florida Senate refused to confirm him.

DeSantis’ office did not respond to a request for comment.

Senate Republicans at the time did not discuss why they declined to confirm Figgers. But a background document on Figgers requested by a state Senate committee, obtained by Blue Light News through a public records request, included information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement about several arrests — although Figgers was never convicted. There was also information from FDLE that was redacted when the report was made available.

When asked about the arrests, Meredith Ivey, a spokesperson for Figgers, said that “the real story here is that Freddie Figgers is a hero who was protecting his elderly 81-year-old father, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s at the time, from physical abuse at the hands of another family member struggling with substance abuse. The charges in these cases were dismissed and it’s unfortunate that anyone would assume harmful motives when, in fact, Freddie put himself in harm’s way to protect his beloved late father.”

The Senate has twice confirmed Natlie Figgers, who is married to Freddie Figgers, to the Florida A&M University Board of Trustees.

The January report from the Office of Congressional Conduct said that both Freddie and Natlie Figgers “refused to cooperate” with the initial review and because of that the office could not determine whether the tablet program benefited his for-profit companies.

The final statement of violations against Cherfilus-McCormick touches briefly on whether she provided special favors in connection to community funding projects but does not go into detail. Figgers is not named directly in that document, but instead an “individual” matching his description is quoted as testifying to an investigative subcommittee. That person told the committee he did not remember anyone from the congressional office reaching out to him. He also told the committee he was “not too confident” the funding would go through and he never received any “promises” from Cherfilus-McCormick that the foundation request would be accepted.

It’s not clear if the program run by the Figgers Foundation will ultimately receive money this year from legislators since there is currently a budget stalemate between the Florida House and Senate. Lawmakers ended their regular session without passing a new budget but need to pass a new state budget by the end of June.

State Rep. Jennifer Kincart Jonsson, a Lakeland Republican who requested money for the program, said in an email, “I was not aware the Figgers Foundation or Mr. Figgers were a part of any congressional inquiry.”

State Sen. Tom Leek, an Ormond Republican who put in a funding request for the tablet program in his chamber, said in a text message that “as you know, final funding decisions have not been made.” But Leek also said he was “completely unaware” of the questions about federal funding to Figgers Foundation. He added: “Nor am I aware of any instance outside of this one where the legitimacy of the Figgers foundation or any other Figgers entity has been in question.”

The House Ethics panel is expected to consider what penalties to impose on Cherfilus-McCormick when the chamber returns from recess, which could include her possible removal from office. Cherfilus-McCormick was also indicted last year on charges that she allegedly stole federal disaster relief funds and used some of the proceeds on her congressional campaign. She has pleaded not guilty.

The Senate sent its deal to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security back to the House Thursday morning — marking what should be the beginning of the end of a historic partial government shutdown.

The Senate’s action, taken in a mostly empty chamber just after 7 a.m., came less than a day after President Donald Trump effectively endorsed a two-track strategy for DHS: funding most of it through a bipartisan deal with Democrats then using the party-line budget reconciliation process for immigration enforcement activities.

That means undertaking a redo of the bill Senate Majority Leader John Thune moved through the Senate last week only to see it rejected by the House, where conservatives balked at separating out enforcement funding.

Now the bill is headed back across the Capitol. The Senate approved Thune’s motion Thursday to set aside the House’s plan, an eight-week all-DHS stopgap, and instead give it a second chance to pass the Senate bill, which omits funding for ICE and parts of Customs and Border Protection that Democrats oppose.

Speaker Mike Johnson signed off Wednesday on the two-track strategy, effectively capitulating after torching the Senate bill Friday as a “joke.” But he could still struggle to move it quickly given early opposition from some members on the right flank of his conference.

While the House will convene for a brief session Thursday morning, it will only take one member to prevent the DHS funding bill from passing, and leaders are not expected to attempt it. Johnson will likely have two more opportunities next week, otherwise he will need to wait until all of his members are back and the chamber is fully in session April 14.

Even once both chambers clear the Senate bill, they will face a tight timeline for the second part of the Trump-blessed plan, delivering an immigration enforcement bill to his desk by June 1.

House Republicans are expected to convene a conference call at 11 a.m. Thursday to talk through the DHS strategy, including assurances leaders have gotten from the White House and Senate about passing another reconciliation bill.

The Senate is expected to move first to approve a budget resolution that will unlock the GOP-only immigration bill, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose private strategy, and could adopt the fiscal blueprint for the final bill by the end of the month.

Hill Republicans so far haven’t needed to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom plans, but a court ruling might leave them no choice but to engage.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the administration must pause construction pending “express authorization from Congress.” Trump had unilaterally torn down the historic East Wing and has forged ahead with plans to replace it with a $400 million, privately financed ballroom.

Trump’s immediate response was to refute, in a Truth Social post, the premise that he needed Congress’ permission to proceed, and his administration is now appealing the ruling in court. Some of his allies in Congress have been quick to offer support while making clear they have no plans to take action.

Lexi Hamel, a spokesperson for Rep. Mike Simpson, said in a statement Wednesday the Idaho Republican “believes the ruling is stupid” and that “nobody raised hell when Roosevelt or Truman renovated the White House (at taxpayer expense).”

But if Trump’s appeal fails, congressional Republicans will have to choose between trying to pass a bill that would give the White House clear authority to forge ahead or risk allowing delays in the project that already had a target completion date of 2028 — not long before the end of Trump’s term.

Mike Davis, a conservative judicial activist who is close to the White House, said in an interview Republicans “need to” take action.

“Are they just going to let the ballroom just sit there in disarray … they’re just going to let the construction zone be a fucking disaster for the next three years?” Davis added. “Like, come on.”

But most Republicans who sit on committees with direct jurisdiction of White House and public property matters have so far been silent on whether they’ll shepherd through legislation to protect one of Trump’s top priorities. Doing so could put them in the crosshairs of Democrats, who have already made clear they think the ballroom is proof the president cares more about entertaining wealthy donors than passing policies to lower the costs of everyday goods — and who, in the Senate, have the ability to block any ballroom authorization measure from ever reaching Trump’s desk.

“This is a very clear test of Republican priorities,” Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement Tuesday evening. “They can either bring up the Senate-passed bill to end the DHS shutdown … or they can bring up a bill to give President Trump permission to build his $350 million ballroom to host his billionaire friends.”

The House Natural Resources Committee and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources are responsible for authorizing projects on land operated by the National Park Service, on which the White House resides. Spokespeople for the chairs of these respective committees, Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, did not respond to requests for comment this week.

The spokesperson for Simpson, the chair of the House funding panel that deals with the Interior Department, said funding for the White House project was not in his purview. Spokespeople for the chairs of the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees with jurisdiction over the Executive Office of the President also did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday. Democrats have made prior, unsuccessful efforts to explicitly ban money from going toward ballroom construction as part of the appropriations process.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), a staunch Trump ally who has previously proposed adding Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore, said in a text message Wednesday he was unaware of moves by any of his GOP colleagues to introduce legislation that would authorize ballroom construction.

Speaker Mike Johnson has previously defended Trump’s decision to build a ballroom, pointing to a number of presidents who have renovated or added to the White House, including former President Barack Obama. Spokespeople for Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune did not return requests for comment Wednesday on the matter.

But privately, Republicans are not yet convinced they need to get involved now, given it’s an ongoing legal battle and lawmakers already have a full plate of issues to attend to in the immediate future — including ending the DHS shutdown, reauthorizing controversial spy powers and meeting Trump’s deadline for delivering a GOP-only immigration enforcement bill.

Asked if the administration would push for Congress to pass legislation to remove any doubt or chance of delay, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle offered a statement critical of the court ruling.

“President Trump clearly has the legal authority to modernize, renovate, and beautify the White House — just like all of his predecessors did,” said Ingle in a statement. “We will immediately appeal this egregious decision and are confident we will prevail.”

Davis, the judicial activist, suggested that Republicans codify their approval of the project through a budget reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple majority for passage in both chambers. There are talks of putting two party-line policy packages together in the coming months, first to deal with ICE and Border Patrol funding and another encompassing a broader range of GOP priorities — but it’s not clear green-lighting Trump’s ballroom would comply with the strict rules governing the reconciliation process.

This isn’t the first time the courts have restrained Trump for failing to seek congressional approval for his unilateral moves: The Supreme Court recently struck down his unilateral tariffs, and lower courts have forced the ousting of U.S. attorneys who never received Senate confirmation.

Trump’s lawyers have argued there are historical precedents for his White House ballroom project, which U.S. District Judge Richard Leon directly addressed in his ruling. But while smaller projects such as Trump’s 2019 tennis pavilion “were never challenged in court,” major expansions in 1933 and 1942 — which included construction of the East Wing Trump is seeking to replace — were authorized “through general appropriations,” Leon wrote.

And a significant White House renovation under President Harry Truman was authorized and funded in a standalone 1949 law that prohibited any “change of [the] present architectural appearance of the exterior of the mansion or the interior of its main floor.”

Yet the argument that past presidents have undertaken White House construction work without incident has been popular with the few Republican lawmakers who have so far chosen to weigh in on the ruling. Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) is among those claiming past presidents have used private funds to make additions to the White House without congressional assent.

“President FDR built an indoor swimming pool with private funds. President Obama built a basketball court with private funds,” Gooden wrote on X. “Yet a single judge can block President Trump from building a PRIVATELY FUNDED ballroom that would benefit generations to come.”

Jordain Carney and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.