Congress

How Senate Republicans finally said ‘no’ to Ingrassia

Published

8 months ago

October 23, 2025

Senate Republicans spent months quietly raising the alarm with the White House about Paul Ingrassia’s nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel before he withdrew from consideration this week.

Members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which was vetting President Donald Trump’s pick, were initially on edge this summer about his comments on social media and perceived lack of qualifications, according to interviews with GOP members of the panel.

Even close Trump allies, including Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, said they dug into his background and were uneasy with what they found. Ingrassia professed to have little memory of inflammatory social media posts and writings when he sat for a meeting with bipartisan committee staff in July, according to three Democratic aides who were present and granted anonymity to discuss the conversation.

Senators reached a breaking point this week after Blue Light News reported on texts that showed Ingrassia making racist and antisemitic remarks to fellow Republicans, as he was set to testify before the Senate Homeland committee on Thursday. Ingrassia announced Tuesday evening that he was withdrawing, citing a lack of GOP votes for his confirmation.

“It’s been ongoing for a while,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview Wednesday. “The members on the committee who have met with him and some of the stuff they had come up with during the vetting process, I think, created some — he had challenges.”

The derailment of Ingrassia’s nomination shows that even some of Trump’s most loyal defenders have limits when it comes to rubber-stamping his administration personnel. In the case of Ingrassia, Republican senators succeeded in blocking the nominee through limited public statements and months of privately putting the White House on notice.

The GOP pushback accelerated in July when he was first scheduled to testify before Senate Homeland Security — a hearing that was ultimately delayed.

In a July 21 meeting with Senate staffers, Ingrassia was asked about a December 2023 social media post where he said “exceptional white men are not only the builders of Western civilization but are the ones most capable of appreciating the fruits of our heritage,” according to the three aides in the room. Ingrassia responded by pointing to Leonardo da Vinci as an example of a great artist but then trailed off, the aides said.

“His most typical response was that he’s posted so many things he couldn’t recall,” said one of the aides.

Just before he was set to testify on July 24, his appearance was postponed.

Ingrassia and his attorney did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Sen. Rand Paul, the chair of Senate Homeland Security, declined to comment.

As Senate staff continued to vet Ingrassia, Republican offices backchanneled with the White House about the nominee’s dimming chances of confirmation.

Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican on Senate Homeland Security, said in an interview this week his office privately signaled to the White House “at a staff level” that he would not support Ingrassia’s confirmation.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican on the panel, said in an interview he had “rolling conversations” with the White House about “what do I think about the nomination.” Hawley said that from the beginning his concerns were focused on a perceived lack of qualifications to lead the office, which investigates federal employee whistleblower complaints and discrimination claims. Ingrassia, a conservative lawyer and activist, would have been two decades younger and less experienced than recent leaders at the Office of Special Counsel.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Scott, whose home state of Florida has a large Jewish population, said in an interview this week that digging from Hill staff had turned up a litany of remarks that troubled him.

“We just reviewed things he had said in the past,” Scott said. “It was just a lot of antisemitic tropes.”

Scrutiny of the nomination ramped up earlier this month, after Blue Light News reported that Ingrassia, who has been serving as White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security, was investigated for harassment involving a lower-ranking colleague. The colleague filed a complaint against him before retracting it. Ingrassia’s attorney denied the allegations.

On Monday, Blue Light News reported on a text chain that showed Ingrassia making a number of offensive remarks, including that he had a “Nazi streak” and that the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday “should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs.” A lawyer for Ingrassia did not confirm the authenticity of the texts and said they “could be manipulated or are being provided with material context omitted.”

Hours before Ingrassia withdrew from consideration Tuesday, Paul in a POLITICO interview vented about Trump’s handling of the nomination and said Republicans should “man up” and bring their concerns about Ingrassia to the president.

“I’m waiting to see a little courage,” Paul said.

But Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), another member of the Homeland Security panel, denied that lawmakers had been reluctant to voice their concerns.

“Several of us … had direct conversations with the White House for a couple of months, actually,” he said.

Congress

Johnson-backed plan to combine Pentagon and election bills advances to floor

Published

3 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Rules Committee advanced a procedural measure aimed at breaking an intra-Republican deadlock Monday night. But GOP leaders are still facing a major battle Tuesday to regain control of the House floor.

The panel approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation.

That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.

However, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Republican leading the blockade, said in an interview Monday before the Rules Committee acted that Johnson’s plan is not sufficient — raising the possibility she and allies could vote down the measure on the floor. Other House GOP hard-liners say there are other outstanding issues to battle over Tuesday.

Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move “a big waste of time.” The panel voted down a motion by McGovern to remove the provision to combine the two bills in a party-line vote.

The Senate is set to debate its own version of the defense bill next month, and it is likely that the elections overhaul will be removed in negotiations between the two chambers — as McGovern acknowledged Monday and House GOP leaders privately concede.

“The Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out,” he said at the meeting. “There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the [Pentagon bill] because of this rule today.”

The defense bill faces a tight vote if Republicans can pass the procedural measure. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the measure over its massive price tag, which they contend is wasteful.

The panel is set up debate on 312 amendments to the bill. The slate includes GOP measures to codify a Trump executive order to block transgender people from serving in the military, prohibit coverage of gender-affirming care, block aid to arm Ukraine and strip Democratic-backed protections for collective bargaining for Pentagon civilian workers.

The committee also voted down Democratic proposals to slash $150 billion from the bill’s topline and limit the war against Iran.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Congress

Pentagon and elections bills could be combined in bid to unfreeze House floor

Published

5 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he plans to deploy an unusual procedural maneuver in a bid to unfreeze the House floor this week, seeking to send the annual Pentagon policy bill and the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act to the Senate in a single package.

That is likely a recipe for a continued standoff between the two chambers over the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate for months due to internal GOP divides. Under Johnson’s plan, the annual defense policy bill, which typically passes every year with large bipartisan majorities, could become a collateral victim of the impasse.

Asked in brief interview if he had talked to Senate Majority Leader John Thune about his plans, Johnson replied, “I have to do my job in the House, and they’ve got to do their job in the Senate, so we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson is seeking to placate House conservative hard-liners, led by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have threatened to oppose the procedural measures that give Republicans control of the floor unless they agree to tougher tactics meant to force the Senate into passing the elections bill.

House GOP leaders discussed the plan to merge the two bills over the weekend as Luna pushed to amend the defense bill directly.

She did not say in an interview Monday whether Johnson’s gambit would suffice: “We want it baked together, not able to be stripped out,” she said.

But the Senate is free to work its own will, and members of that chamber are likely to reject any defense bill that has the partisan elections bill attached. That would set the stage for GOP leaders to strip it out when the House and Senate hash out the differences between their competing Pentagon bills later this year.

Johnson, meanwhile, is pushing a separate plan to pass a slimmed-down version of the SAVE America Act through the party-line budget reconciliation process — an option hard-liners have all but rejected.

“I don’t think that that can be done,” Luna told reporters Monday.

He’s also facing another complication: The version of the SAVE America Act he is proposing to attach to the Pentagon bill doesn’t include the latest demands for the bill from President Donald Trump — including a near-total ban on mail voting that is opposed by many Republicans.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Trump officials face bipartisan questions in first all-member Iran briefings

Published

6 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers of both parties questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff Monday in the first broad congressional briefings on President Donald Trump’s Iran deal.

While Democrats asked some of the sharpest questions, participants in an afternoon conference call with House members said, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) at one point pressed the administration officials on the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

According to two people granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks, Witkoff and Rubio repeated assurances the administration has privately made to select lawmakers in prior briefings — that the goal is to negotiate a final deal that would prohibit Iran from keeping its highly enriched uranium.

The memorandum of understanding Trump signed earlier this month, they said, was meant to launch those negotiations. Witkoff, the people said, added that the technical team involved in that part of the talks was traveling from Switzerland to Qatar, where talks between the U.S. and Iran are set to happen Tuesday.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed the administration for more details on what financial benefits Iran could reap under the memorandum — including proceeds from previously sanctioned oil sales.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) went back and forth with Rubio and Witkoff over the lifting of the oil sanctions, two other people granted anonymity on the House call said. The officials eventually cut off the conversation and ended the call.

At another point, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) raised concerns about Witkoff’s business interests in the Middle East as he’s negotiating with Iran, prompting a sharp defense from Rubio, those people said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked Rubio and Witkoff about the oil sanctions during a separate all-senators call Monday, saying in a statement afterward that they “confirmed to me that Iran will reap billions in oil revenue while retaining dangerous leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.”

“If this is the administration’s defense behind closed doors, Secretary Rubio should make it under oath, in public, before the Foreign Relations Committee,” Schumer added, calling the briefing “delayed, deficient, and devoid of details.”

An administration official granted anonymity to speak candidly countered on Schumer’s characterization, noting that he had previously gotten a briefing of the deal as part of a group of top leaders engaged on national security matters. Schumer, the official said, had the opportunity to ask multiple follow-up questions on the Senate call.

A separate group of White House officials briefed top congressional leaders and key committee chairs in a classified briefing in the Capitol later Monday.

The administration has faced bipartisan skepticism over multiple provisions of the memorandum of understanding — particularly the lifting of oil sanctions and a $300 billion reconstruction fund that many Senate Republicans fear will help fuel Iran’s military and regional proxies.

Rubio and Witkoff sought to ease concerns about the slow reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — the critical trade route whose closure has sparked higher fuel and fertilizer costs. Both officials said more mine removal is required, and Witkoff indicated that Iran broke the terms of the Trump-signed deal by launching a drone attack on a passing ship over the weekend.

They also sought to assure lawmakers that Iran has received no money under the memorandum — especially not directly from American sources. Administration officials have previously pledged in smaller briefings that the reconstruction fund won’t include U.S. funds.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) called the Senate briefing a “productive conversation” but said “much of what I heard today is similar to what I heard last week” during a dinner at Vice President JD Vance’s residence.