Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

News

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.


“Trump has gone the distance to nominate people who are loyalists, people that he can count upon to do what he wants,” said Stanford political science professor Terry Moe. “And for the most part, senators have just been willing to embrace anyone that he nominates.”

Moe said that, compared to past presidents, Trump has taken his determination to prioritize loyalty in presidential appointments “to the extreme,” laying aside the normal concern for competence.

Only a small group of senators has demonstrated a willingness to stand up against Trump’s appointments, and only behind closed doors, Moe emphasized. This was apparent in Ingrassia’s case — some senators reportedly “spent months quietly raising the alarm” against him.

Ingrassia was scheduled to appear before the Senate Homeland Security Committee for a confirmation hearing on Thursday, but had encountered opposition over his past use of racist language, promotion of conspiracy theories, and connection to Nick Fuentes, a White nationalist and Holocaust denier.

On Monday, Politico reported Ingrassia had told a group of fellow Republicans in a text chain that he has “a Nazi streak” and that the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday belongs in the “seventh circle of hell.”

Ingrassia’s lawyer would not confirm to Politico that the texts were authentic, instead implying that the texts could have been “manipulated” and were intended to make fun of liberals.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-La.) suggested Monday night to reporters that the administration should withdraw Ingrassia’s nomination.

“He’s not going to pass,” Thune said.

At least three other Republicans on the committee indicated they would oppose Ingrassia’s confirmation: Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

Committee Democrats were also expected to vote against Ingrassia and have condemned his speech.

“This clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric along with his complete lack of any — any — relevant experience, is wholly disqualifying,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) on Thursday. “Paul Ingrassia should have never been nominated for such a critical oversight role, but his insistence just exemplifies the Trump administration’s outright contempt for independent oversight.”

Trump nominated Ingrassia in May to lead the Office of Special Counsel, a traditionally independent agency that enforces civil service laws and protects federal whistleblowers. Ingrassia is currently a White House liaison at the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans delayed Ingrassia’s confirmation hearing in July, with one pointing to concerns about his alleged ties to antisemitism. He has also faced accusations of sexual harassment.

In withdrawing from consideration, Ingrassia joins a group of Trump nominees who have been pushed to withdraw their names after some form of wrongdoing.

Before Trump entered office in his second term, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew as the nominee for attorney general after reports emerged that he had sex with a minor.

Last month, Trump withdrew his nomination for E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics after CNN reported on his now-deleted Twitter account that “featured sexually degrading attacks on Kamala Harris, derogatory remarks about gay people, conspiracy theories and crude insults aimed at critics of President Donald Trump.”

Still, many Trump nominees have been confirmed despite known misconduct and a lack of qualifications. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for instance, faced allegations of sexual assault, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement. Just recently, the Senate confirmed Herschel Walker as the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, even though two women have accused him of domestic abuse. The Senate also confirmed Joe Kent, who is affiliated with the Proud Boys, to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.

“There are many people who are willing to engage in extremist behavior who get nominated, who these Republican senators vote for,” Moe said. “This Paul Ingrassia situation is just the exception to the rule. For the most part, there are all sorts of extremists who have been appointed, and Republicans are willing to fall in line.”

And, ongoing nomination processes have grown heated, as Democrats attempt to limit executive overreach. On Thursday, as the Senate Homeland Security Committee considered the rest of the nominations on its agenda, one seemingly contentious idea came to the fore: the independence of the Office of Inspector General.

Former congressman Anthony D’Esposito, who is up for consideration to be the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Labor, received particular attention.

During his nomination hearing on Thursday, Peters accused D’Esposito of being a “partisan operative,” as he had allegedly written a “pledge to carry out the president’s agenda” in his opening statement.

“President Trump has a vision to reign in the golden age of the American worker,” D’Esposito said when asked to comment on this claim. “I don’t believe that’s partisan. I don’t believe creating the fiercest, strongest military is partisan. I think that all should be American.”

Sen. Margaret Hassan (D-N.H.) also pressed D’Espesito and other nominees as to whether they would choose to uphold the rule of law or Trump’s agenda, two things that she said come into conflict.

In response, D’Espesito said Trump is a “man of integrity” who would never ask the nominees to break the law.

Hassan wasn’t satisfied.

“Your answer defies the factual record,” she said.

Sophie Baker covers politics for Medill on the Hill. She is a sophomore from Utah studying journalism and political science at Northwestern University. On campus, she writes for The Daily Northwestern, where she has served as an assistant city editor.


Read More

Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less