Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination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

Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building

Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building on Oct. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. If Democrats win the House in November, questions will swirl around impeaching President Trump yet again.

(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images/TNS)

The Good Reasons and Bad Politics Surrounding a Third Trump Impeachment

A coalition of right-wing organizations and activists is lobbying the White House to grant mass pardons to junior staffers in the administration. “A pardon for all junior administration personnel is viewed as unlikely,” one source told the Washington Sun, “but the president could issue blanket pardons for all employees involved in particular policy areas, such as deportations, war or trade.”

Oh, just war, deportations and trade? Is that all?

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less