Hearings to examine the nominations of Edward Forst, of Florida, to be Administrator of General Services, Charles Arrington, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority for a term expiring July 1, 2030, John Cuong Truong, Elana S. Suttenberg, and Stephen F. Rickard, each to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, William Kirk, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, Small Business Administration, Anthony D'Esposito, of New York, to be Inspector General, Department of Labor, and Platte Moring, of South Carolina, to be Inspector General, Department of Defense.

Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments

2025-10-23

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This hearing convened to consider eight nominees for various federal positions, including administrator of the General Services Administration, a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, three associate judges for the DC Superior Court, and Inspector Generals for the Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, and Department of Defense [ 00:17:49-00:18:17 ] . Chairman Josh Hawley introduced the nominees and noted the submission of their written statements and letters of support [ 00:18:30-00:18:41 ] . Ranking Member Gary Peters immediately raised significant concerns about the nominations and the current administration's approach to oversight [ 00:21:35-00:21:41 ] .

Themes

Inspector General Independence and Controversies

Ranking Member Peters expressed strong criticism regarding the withdrawn nomination of Paul Ingrassia, citing "racist messages" and a "clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric" as disqualifying [ 00:21:48-00:22:20 ] . Peters further accused the Trump administration of displaying "outright contempt for independent oversight," detailing instances of alleged illegal firings of inspectors general, withheld funding, and attacks on government accountability agencies . Several Inspector General nominees (Platt Mooring, Anthony D'Esposito, William Kirk) faced scrutiny for their reluctance to state definitively whether the President violated the IG Act by firing IGs without proper notification, often citing pending litigation or deferring to the Solicitor General's position . Senator Peters viewed these responses as evidence that the nominees might not uphold independent oversight [ 00:34:09-00:34:31 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Senators Lankford and Paul, however, defended the nominees, arguing the issue was complex and under litigation . Senator Maggie Hassan pressed the IG nominees on whether they would follow the law if directed by the President to take illegal action, with all eventually committing to uphold the law, though some hesitated or qualified their answers . Concerns were also raised about potential conflicts of interest, specifically regarding claims that the President sought taxpayer money for himself from federal agencies .

Federal Property Management and AI Procurement

Edward Forrest, the nominee for the General Services Administration (GSA), was questioned by Senator Lankford about his plans for disposing of unused federal property, given the nation's significant debt [ 00:23:58-00:24:03 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Forrest acknowledged the federal government's vast real estate portfolio, including $24 billion in deferred maintenance, and committed to assessing the "right size" and "right mission" for government properties [ 00:25:27-00:26:59 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Senator Peters also expressed concern about GSA's recent procurement of Elon Musk's XAI chatbot, Groke, due to reports of its alleged racist and anti-Semitic content . Forrest stated he was not part of that decision but would investigate the process and ensure completeness . Senator Joni Ernst raised issues with the GSA's SmartPay program, highlighting widespread misuse of government credit cards at high-risk merchants and by former employees . Forrest committed to improving data management and risk assessment for procurement activities [ 00:48:41-00:50:02 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Judicial Nominees and Sentencing Philosophy

John Truong, a nominee for the DC Superior Court, addressed Senator Lankford's question about addressing court backlogs, pledging to be prepared daily, communicate expectations clearly, and issue standing orders to ensure parties are ready for trial, thereby expediting cases . Senator Hawley questioned Truong, Elena Suttenberg, and Steven Ricard, also DC Superior Court nominees, on their judicial philosophy regarding sentencing . He referenced a case where a judge stated the purpose of sentencing is "not punishment but rehabilitation" . Truong emphasized considering all facts and applying the law to reflect the crime's seriousness . Suttenberg listed retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation as important factors and affirmed that public safety and keeping violent offenders off the streets are major goals . Ricard stated that DC law requires considering the seriousness of the offense, criminal history, deterrence (specific and general), and rehabilitation as one of three factors, also agreeing on protecting the public .

Concerns about "Weaponization" of Government

Senator Elissa Slotkin questioned Platt Mooring, the DOD IG nominee, on whether targeting American citizens for their political views by DOD intelligence agencies would violate the law . Mooring declined to make a legal determination, stating it was not the IG's role to interpret law but to assess if agencies followed their own policies [ 00:41:55-00:42:03 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:42:31-00:42:31 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Slotkin expressed strong concern about the implication of turning intelligence agencies against American citizens based on political views, calling it a violation of fundamental values . Senator Rand Paul agreed that targeting individuals for their beliefs is wrong and cited a past instance, "Arctic Frost," where 9 members of Congress were allegedly targeted with unconstitutional warrants for geolocation data . Senator Ashley Moody echoed these concerns, lamenting the potential for government agencies to be used against the people .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely contentious and polarized, particularly concerning the Inspector General nominations . Ranking Member Peters adopted a critical and accusatory stance towards the Trump administration and some nominees, challenging their independence and commitment to oversight . This led to sharp exchanges between senators, with Republican members like Lankford and Paul criticizing Peters' "sarcasm" and characterization of the nominees [ 00:34:42-00:35:13 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. While some questioning was procedural and focused on policy, there was a palpable underlying tension reflecting partisan divisions, particularly evident in discussions about the "weaponization" of government agencies and judicial philosophy . Despite the confrontational moments, some senators offered words of appreciation for the nominees' willingness to serve [ 00:23:25-00:23:27 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:28:42-00:28:51 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Participants

Transcript

The hearing will come to order.  Today the committee is excited to meet eight nominees.  They will be Edward Forrest to be the administrator of the General Services Administration, Charles Errington to be a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, John Truong to be an associate judge on the DC Superior Court, Elena Suttenberg to be associate judge on the Superior Court,   Steven Ricard, also to be an Associate Judge on the D.C. Superior Court.  William Kirk, to be Inspector General of the Small Business Administration.  Anthony D'Esposito, to be the Inspector General of the Department of Labor.  And last but not least, Platt Mooring, to be Inspector General for the Department of Defense.  The witnesses' written statements have been submitted for the record, and I ask unanimous consent to submit letters of support that have been received for the nominees.   In the interest of time, I will forego opening remarks, but I will recognize Ranking Member Peters at this time.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to each of our nominees, and congratulations on your nominations.  I'd like to start with the nomination that we're not considering today.  I'm glad that Paul Ingrassia's nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel has been withdrawn.  The racist messages Mr. Ingrassia reportedly sent in a private chat   are absolutely disgusting.  Mr. Ingrassia has said that he is being smeared unfairly, and that those messages lack context.  But let's be clear, there's no context that makes the use of racial slurs okay.  And even without these messages, we also have hundreds of racist, sexist, anti-Semitic statements by Mr. Ingrassia that he has made publicly in his short career.   His clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric, along with his complete lack of any relevant experience, is wholly disqualifying.  Polingracia should have never been nominated for such a critical oversight role, but his insistence, I think, just exemplifies the Trump administration's outright contempt for independent oversight.   Since taking office, this administration has attacked every key institution charged with rooting out government waste, fraud, and abuse.  In January, President Trump illegally fired 18 inspectors general without any explanation to Congress and dismissed another IG last week, again, without legally required justification.   Last month, the administration withheld funding for the Inspector General community, literally shutting down online portals for whistleblowers to report corruption, fraud, or wasteful spending.  When Congress pushed back, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget did not have a good answer.
The president has fired top officials at the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board, agency charged with protecting whistleblowers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse.  This administration has repeatedly attacked the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office just last month, saying it should not exist.  Government accountability should not exist, in the president's words.   These are agencies that Congress created to hold the president and the executive branch accountable to ensure that the federal government is indeed serving the American people and not the whims of a pocketbook of the president or his political cronies.   To the three inspector general nominees today, I am concerned about your ability to conduct effective oversight, given the president's attacks on IG independence.  Congress D'Esposito, in particular, you have made no effort to address concerns that you are a partisan operative.  You have even submitted an opening statement to this committee that includes a pledge to carry out the president's agenda as an inspector general.   This betrays a very deep misunderstanding of the role of what an IG actually is.  To say nothing of the laundry list of misconduct allegations that has been made against you in your career.   To the other nominees, I also have concerns and questions about the important roles you have been nominated for.  Unfortunately, a hearing with eight nominees and five minutes for questions necessarily limits members' abilities to get answers to important questions and to have meaningful exchanges, and it certainly limits public transparency into the committee's nomination process, which I'm sure was the intent of the chairman.   Still, I want to thank all your nominees for being here today, and I look forward to hearing from each of you.
It's the practice of this committee to swear in witnesses.  Will the nominees please stand and raise your right hand?  Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  So help you God.  Thank you.   It's the standard practice of the committee for the chairman to ask the nominees the following question.  Do you agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed?  Why don't we just go down the list, Mr. Forrest, Mr. Harrington, Mr. Tong, Sudenberg, Ricard, Burke, D'Esposito, and Mooring.  I do.  Thank you.   We will now have a round of five-minute questions, and we'll start with Senator Lankford.
Thank you to all of you for being here and for going through this process.  It is a long, arduous process with lots of paperwork and lots of questions that has actually led you to this moment.  And then we're going to expeditiously work through this process on the hearing as well today.  So a question for a few of you.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up