Hearings to examine the nominations of John Walk, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Agriculture, and Thomas Bell, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services.

Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments

2025-11-19

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This hearing convened to consider the nominations of John Walk to be Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Thomas March Bell to be Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [ 00:17:08-00:17:36 ] . Senators questioned the nominees on their independence, past actions of the administration regarding Inspectors General, and their plans to address waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs [ 00:21:30-00:21:39 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Both nominees affirmed their commitment to upholding the law and addressing critical issues within their respective departments [ 00:28:05-00:28:18 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:46:16 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Themes

Concerns Regarding Inspector General Independence

Senator Peters expressed disappointment over the lack of public oversight of the current administration, noting a significant reduction in hearings compared to previous years . He highlighted President Trump's firing of 19 Inspectors General without legal notification or explanation, questioning the administration's respect for independent oversight . Senator Hassan pressed both nominees on whether they supported the illegal firing of their predecessors, a move that a federal judge found to have broken the law [ 00:29:26-00:29:30 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Mr. Walk cited pending litigation as a reason for not answering directly, while Mr. Bell supported the President's right to remove employees without endorsing the legality of the specific actions [ 00:29:51 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Concerns were also raised about the nominees' partisan backgrounds affecting their impartiality, with Senator Peters specifically questioning Mr. Bell's opening statement which praised the Trump administration's initiatives [ 00:40:25-00:41:43 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Mr. Bell clarified that his support was for "good government" initiatives like rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse [ 00:42:00-00:42:07 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Addressing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Federal Programs

A significant portion of the hearing focused on the nominees' commitment to combating waste, fraud, and abuse. Senator Ernst emphasized the HHS IG's massive responsibility, citing over $1 billion in unrecovered Medicaid overpayments and questionable NIH-funded research projects . Mr. Bell committed to addressing these issues and investigating instances of fraudulent billing in healthcare programs [ 00:33:01 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Senator Paul brought up the SNAP program, noting 12% improper payments, to which Mr. Walk suggested improving internal controls, leveraging technology, and increasing criminal prosecutions for fraud [ 00:47:06-00:47:23 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Senator Moody highlighted grave concerns about the previous administration's handling of unaccompanied alien children, alleging that children were placed in dangerous situations and subjected to abuse, and secured Mr. Bell's commitment to review and hold the agency accountable for this issue .

Nominee Commitments and Priorities

Both nominees were asked to commit to upholding the law, with Mr. Walk stating he would faithfully abide by the U.S. Constitution and laws, even if directed otherwise by the President [ 00:28:05-00:28:18 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. When asked about continuing existing investigations, both Mr. Walk and Mr. Bell indicated they would review cases on their merits rather than making blanket commitments [ 00:31:45-00:31:48 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Mr. Walk outlined his priorities for the USDA IG office, including public health and safety, program integrity, and national security programs, specifically mentioning concerns about foreign investments in agriculture, research security, and agricultural independence . Mr. Bell committed to prioritizing oversight of rural hospital cybersecurity and modernizing fraud detection systems, drawing on his Department of Justice experience .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely contentious and politically charged, particularly from Democratic senators who expressed deep skepticism regarding the independence of the Inspector General nominees [ 00:21:41-00:21:47 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:32:38-00:32:42 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. There was a clear partisan divide, with Republican senators focusing on specific instances of waste and fraud and seeking assurances of efficiency . Nominees maintained a professional demeanor despite pointed questions about past presidential actions and their impartiality, often providing detailed, albeit cautious, responses [ 00:29:51 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Participants

Transcript

Good morning.  The hearing will come to order.  Today the committee meets to consider two nominations.  John Walk is nominated to be Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Mr.  Walk currently works as a senior advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture and previously served in various roles within the executive branch over the last 20 years.   Thomas March Bell is nominated to be Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Mr. Bell currently serves as General Counsel and Senior Investigative Counsel on the House Committee on Administration.  He previously served in various roles at the Department of Justice, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.  The witnesses' written statements have been submitted for the record.  In the interest of time, I will forego opening remarks.  Senator Peters.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our nominees, and congratulations on your nominations.  Good to see that you have your family here with you as well.  I think it is important for this committee to hear from and question nominees at public hearings, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to do that today.  However, I'm disappointed that we have had almost no opportunity to conduct public oversight   of this administration and its top officials after they have been confirmed.  Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of this year, you have held just one hearing, one hearing where an administration official testified, and that was more than six months ago.  Just to put in perspective, when I was chairman during the Biden administration,   We had 10 hearings with administration officials at this point in that first year.  One versus 10.  Year's not over.  We could catch up and get to the 10, but that's a pretty slim, slim agenda.  You've only held also one legislative markup this year.   This committee has wide-ranging legislative and oversight responsibilities.  There are several bills that members on both sides of the aisle want to debate in advance, and there are numerous oversight issues administration officials need to answer for.  Chairman Paul, I hope you will call on the leaders of DHS, the FBI, and the National Counterterrorism Center to testify before this committee before the end of the year.   This committee's annual threats hearing provides a critical opportunity for the American people to hear from our national security leaders about wide-ranging threats that are currently facing our nation.  Now turning to our nominees.  This year, the administration has launched an unprecedented attack on the independence of inspector generals.  These are nonpartisan watchdogs responsible for combating waste, fraud, and abuse across the government.
Since taking office, President Trump has fired 19 inspectors general, and not once did he provide the legally required notification or explanation to Congress.  President Trump has also attacked acting IGs.  Just two weeks ago, he fired the acting IG for the Federal Housing Finance Agency in an apparent act of retaliation.   As the administration continues to undermine independent oversight bodies, it's more important now than ever that we have qualified nonpartisan individuals to serve in these roles.  Thomas March Bell has been nominated to serve as the IG of the Department of Health and Human Services.  If confirmed, Mr. Bell will be tasked with overseeing one of the largest departments, including $2.3 trillion budget and over 100 programs.   Given Mr Bell's highly partisan track record, I'm concerned that he will instead use the IG's office to pursue political aims, attacking women's reproductive rights, for example.  So what does the record show?  Mr Bell led a partisan investigation into an alleged sale of fetal tissue for profit, a claim that has already been thoroughly investigated and thoroughly debunked.   He served as the chief of staff of the Office of Civil Rights at HHS in the first Trump administration, where he limited women's access to reproductive care.  Mr. Bell is anything but a nonpartisan.  Currently, he's investigating a Democratic fundraising platform.  Even though its Republican counterpart faces the exact same issues, he's only focusing on the Democratic platform.  He's placed politics with every oversight role that he has had.   Mr. Bell is not unique.  I'm also concerned about the independence of President Trump's nominee for IG to the Department of Agriculture.  John Walke is currently serving as senior advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture and as the acting director of the Office of Tribal Relations.
He also serves as the acting deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.   How can we trust that the Secretary's right-hand man will provide independent oversight of the very policies and the very programs that he has implemented?

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