[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                  HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

   SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-100

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary







 
 
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]










               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
56-926                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
MATT GAETZ, Florida                      Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
MICHAEL RULLI, Ohio

                                 ------                                

            SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  LINDA SANCHEZ, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida           GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             DAN GOLDMAN, New York
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
              CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
           CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                     Wednesday, September 25, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page

The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of Ohio.     1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the Virgin Islands........................................     3

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, United States 
  Department of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
Tristan Leavitt, President, Empower Oversight
  Oral Testimony.................................................    21
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    23
Marcus Allen, Whistleblower, former Staff Operations Specialist, 
  FBI
  Oral Testimony.................................................    27
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    29
Glenn Kirschner, former Homicide Prosecutor, United States 
  Attorney's Office, District of Columbia
  Oral Testimony.................................................    31
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    33

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee 
  on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below    71

A letter to the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the State of Kentucky, Sept. 20, 2024, from the Office of 
  the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 
  submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Kentucky, for the record
An article entitled, ``As President, Trump Demanded 
  Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them.'' Sept. 21, 2024, 
  The New York Times, submitted by the Honorable Dan Goldman, a 
  Member of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the 
  Federal Government from the State of New York, for the record
An article enitled, ``Agenda47: President Trump's Plan to 
  Dismantle the Deep State and Return Power to the American 
  People,'' Mar. 21, 2023, Trump Vance Campaign, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jasmine Crockett, a Member of the Select Subcommittee 
  on the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State 
  of Texas, for the record
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the State of Ohio, the Honorable James Comer, Chair of the 
  House Committee on Oversight and Reform from the State of 
  Kentucky, the Honorable Michael Turner, Chair of the House 
  Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from the State of 
  Ohio, the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of New York, the Honorable Jamie 
  Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and 
  Reform from the State of Maryland, and the Honorable Jim Himes, 
  Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
  Intelligence fronm the State of Connecticut, from the American 
  Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Sept. 24, 2024, submitted by 
  the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
  the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
  Ohio, for the record
An article entitled, ``Trump claims not to know who is behind 
  Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked 
  for him are involved,'' Jul. 11, 2024, CNN, submitted by the 
  Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the Virgin Islands, for the record

                                APPENDIX

A statement by the Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Virginia, for the record

 
                  HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE 
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                              ----------                              


                     Wednesday, September 25, 2024

                        House of Representatives

   Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Massie, 
Gaetz, Bishop, Hageman, Davidson, Fry, Plaskett, Lynch, 
Sanchez, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly, Garamendi, Garcia, 
Goldman, and Crockett.
    Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts to lead us in the 
Pledge of Allegiance.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes himself for an 
opening statement. The FBI can't tell us who planted pipe bombs 
on January 6th. They can't tell us who leaked the Dobbs 
decision. They can't tell us who put cocaine at the White 
House, but they were able to spy on the Presidential campaign, 
lied to a FISA Court, investigate parents showing up at a 
school board meeting, and of course, saying if you are a pro-
life Catholic, you are somehow an extremist. All that because I 
think the FBI is driven by politics today.
    In this Congress, this Subcommittee has been investigating 
the political actions of the FBI and the double standards at 
the Biden-Harris Justice Department. We have heard from 
countless witnesses. We have heard from Government officials 
and experts. We have heard from Americans targeted by their 
Government, not just conservatives, but also Democrats. In 
fact, we were in a hearing in this room over a year ago when 
journalist Matt Taibbi was testifying. While he was testifying, 
wasn't the FBI for Justice Department, but I think it makes a 
point, while he was testifying, the IRS was knocking on his 
door. Chilling impact, knocking on his door. It turned out they 
actually owed him money, but they did it the very moment he was 
testifying to us about the censorship going on in the Biden-
Harris Administration.
    Most importantly, we have heard from whistleblowers. We 
have him with us today and we look forward to hearing from Mr. 
Allen. As we have seen you are not politically correct, you are 
not in align with what the Government think sis the proper 
position, you become the target.
    Just as frightening, if you are one of the good employees 
in our Government who came forward to talk about the targeting, 
then you really become the target. If you are one of those good 
employees driven by your commitment to the Constitution, your 
conscience, and you come forward, they are coming after you. 
The FBI has used the security clearance adjudication process to 
purge its ranks of conservatives and whistleblowers, to 
unlawfully punish those with views contrary to the FBI 
leadership.
    Mr. Leavitt has brought multiple whistleblower disclosures 
to this Committee regarding the rampant politics within the 
FBI's Security Division which is tasked with investigating and 
adjudicating employees' eligibility for a security clearance. 
Whistleblowers describe the Security Division of the FBI as ``a 
toxic work environment.'' Investigators were asking employees 
about their colleagues, questions like did they support 
President Trump? Are they opposed to COVID vaccination? We know 
they asked this because there is a questionnaire that they use, 
an actual questionnaire that the FBI use to have colleagues 
snitch on their fellow workers.
    According to whistleblowers, the Security Division 
leadership, under the command of Deputy Assistant Director 
Jeffrey Veltri, created an environment where,

        It was very common for investigators to ask inappropriate 
        questions of an employee's colleagues, the content of which 
        could never have been used to revoke a person's clearance.

    By the way, what is Mr. Veltri up to now? The guy who 
during his time at the Security Division was described to being 
adamantly anti-Trump? He is leading the investigation into the 
second assassination attempt on President Trump in Miami. He is 
the Special Agent-in-Charge in Miami.
    Whistleblowers reference specific cases where the FBI 
circumvented due process and ignored key facts during clearance 
investigations, including investigations on Marcus Allen, who 
we will hear from, and Garret O'Boyle, both whistleblowers who 
came to this Committee. Both men stood up and said this isn't 
right. What the FBI is doing isn't right and they both had 
their clearances suspended and then revoked. The FBI isn't 
going to get away with it. On May 13, 2024, Inspector General 
Horowitz released a memo finding that the Justice Department 
and the FBI failed to comply with clear statutory and 
regulatory whistleblower clearance protection.
    On May 31, 2024, the FBI reinstated Mr. Allen's clearance 
stating that the original security concerns had been 
investigated and they were mitigated. All this after 27 months 
where they harassed Mr. Allen. Remember, Mr. Allen came before 
this Committee on May 18th of last year. The night before the 
hearing, the FBI sent this Committee a letter filled with lies 
about the whistleblowers that were going to testify that next 
day. The FBI questioned Mr. Allen's allegiance to the United 
States, a decorated Marine veteran, 20 years of having a 
security clearance, and employee of the year at his Charlotte 
Office. They questioned that.
    During the hearing, Democrats attacked Mr. Allen, first, by 
imputing someone else's Tweets to Mr. Allen; second, by 
comparing him to individuals convicted of sharing classified 
information with foreign governments, ridiculous; and finally, 
by saying he wasn't a whistleblower, just had grievances. That 
is not what the IG concluded, not at all. Mr. Allen was simply 
doing his job, doing it well, and for that because he 
questioned the leadership at the FBI, he was harassed, lost his 
security clearance for 27 months, only to have it reinstated.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today 
and with that, I would yield to the Ranking Member for an 
opening statement.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you and good morning to everyone here, 
this Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government. In 46 days, Americans will go to the polls for one 
of the most consequential elections of our lifetimes. Americans 
will decide the composition of Congress, as well as the next 
President of the United States and then prayerfully, this 
Select Committee will be over because the purpose of this 
Committee will no longer be necessary. What was that purpose? 
Well, it is what I said almost two years ago, to test out 
conspiracy theories, prop up those stories that the far right 
wishes to push into the American psyche and to lay the 
groundwork for a dictatorial government led by Donald Trump.
    Now, immediately you will hear moans of disapproval and X, 
formerly called Twitter, is going to call me a racist. They are 
going to call me a disrespectful Black bitch, because I have 
said words against the Chair, my White male counterpart, on 
this Committee. I am a tool of the woke agenda. I have heard 
it. I have read it all, as well as so many of my colleagues 
that are here. Our moderate individuals will say I am being an 
alarmist and that there is no way America becomes a 
dictatorship. We are just pointing out how the Federal 
Government comes after conservatives.
    In the two-years that we have been doing this Groundhog Day 
over and over and over again, there has been no evidence to 
show that the Federal Government and particularly the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, or the Department of Justice 
has been wholly weaponized against the right. The same way my 
Republican colleagues have not been able to show that Joseph 
Biden has committed impeachable offenses or that Secretary 
Mayorkas committed any high crimes and misdemeanors. They knew 
they never could because as Biggie says, ``it was just a 
dream.''
    We have had hearings over and over about the Federal 
Government, again, the FBI and DOJ, in particular, and the 
White House trying to stop free speech on social media 
platforms. Other Committees along with this one, have spent 
millions of taxpayer dollars interviewing senior social media 
executives and, particularly, those that set the parameters of 
content moderation to say that the sites unfairly come after 
conservatives. When what we have learned is that those 
executives have in the past tried to provide users with 
corrections to disinformation and misinformation which may 
create health risks, put people in danger, or may have placed 
falsely by the enemies of our country to try to sow election 
disinformation and false narratives to weaken our democratic 
election system.
    This Committee has been used to weaken that system 
following the desires of far right conspiracy theorists and in 
particular, Elon Musk, to allow them free rein on these 
platforms. America civilians have been harassed, threatened, 
and doxxed. Mr. Musk, since you think tweeting, X-ing, or 
whatever it is you call you do on your platform about me is 
going to scare me to be quiet you obviously don't know what I 
am made of. Generations of individuals who have fought for me 
to have the ability to say what I want to say, to speak the 
truth. You forget that this is not pre-1990s apartheid South 
Africa, the country of your birth. This is America and there 
are more of us Americans that love our diversity, our rule of 
law, than there are of you who would like us all to be 
sycophants to your ego.
    The outcome of hearings of this Committee has supported my 
claim that from the very beginning of the creation of this 
Select Subcommittee that his has been the gaslighting to the 
ninth degree, a tremendous projection of the highest order, 
that the evidence is the words of their leader, there would-be 
Fuhrer Donald Trump and Project 2025, a 900-page manifesto of a 
transformed America. Donald Trump has spoken his intentions out 
loud, and his followers were so bold as to put it in a document 
with his knowledge to outline how they would create a State to 
serve the interests of a few at the expense of the many. Trump, 
himself a convicted felon, has pledged that on day one, this is 
a quote,

        On day one of my new administration, I will direct the DOJ to 
        investigate every radical DA and attorney general for their 
        illegal, racist enforcement of the law.

He has said that undocumented immigrants are, ``poisoning the 
blood of our country.'' Language echoing the rhetoric of Nazi 
Germany. Has promised to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to 
``carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in 
American history.'' Who would defend his use of the law for 
that purpose? The Department of Justice.
    He has promised, Trump's words, ``to stop the Federal 
Government, including the Department of Justice and FBI with 
appointees loyal to him and only him.'' Not to the Constitution 
which he has separately said could be revoked because it 
doesn't do what he wants it to do, who will carry out his every 
order without question. The how-to of do these threats have 
been fleshed out by individuals absolutely loyal to Trump. How 
do we know that? Because the vast majority of individuals who 
worked on his cabinet have stated they look forward to working 
with him again and instituting Project 2025.
    Russ Vought, former Director of OMB and Policy Director for 
the Republic National Convention, wrote the details for the 
consolidation of Executive Power in Project 2025. Stephen 
Miller, a former advisor to Trump, who has crafted the most 
sweeping immigration agenda, has been an advisor of Project 
2025 through the dark money group, American First Legal.
    We remember Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump's 
most inhumane border policies and the champion of the racist 
great replacement conspiracy theory. That is Stephen Miller.
    In April 2022, Trump spoke with The Heritage Foundation 
after meeting with its head, Kevin Roberts, and said that the 
group would, ``lay the groundwork in detailed plan for exactly 
what our movement will do.'' Voila, Project 2025, the 
conservative blueprint for remaking the Federal Government if 
Donald Trump is reelected. Trump's words, in Project 2025, are 
exactly what the Democratic Members of this Committee said back 
when this Committee started that their leader, Trump, was 
trying to do, to mandate a Project 2025 for leadership, direct 
the Department of Justice, which it seems to be the main focus 
of so many of our hearings, along with the FBI, to fill the 
Department with as many political appointees as opposed to 
career civil servants as possible, especially in the Civil 
Rights Division, the FBI, and the Executive Office of 
Immigration Review. Initiate legal action against local 
officials including district attorneys, who refuse to prosecute 
criminal offenses in their jurisdiction specifically DAs in 
liberal jurisdictions. Criminally punish abortion providers who 
distribute abortion pills through the mail to patients in need 
of reproductive healthcare. Shift responsibility for 
prosecuting election-related offenses from DOJ's Civil Rights 
Division to the Criminal Division, which according to the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights will 
open to the door to sham investigations and aggressive 
prosecution of voters and election officials and serve to 
intimidate State and local election workers already under 
threat and could criminalize election administration disputes. 
We could go on.
    This is the true weaponization of the Federal Government 
and this what we should be addressing today, but what are we 
doing there today in a Subcommittee, 46 days before the most 
consequential election, we are holding yet another hearing in 
which my Republican colleagues will try to advance conspiracy 
theories about the DOJ and the FBI.
    Let me state plainly. Contrary to what you will hear from 
my counterparts today, there is no conspiracy in the whole of 
the FBI to root out conservatives in that agency. What we do 
have is sustained campaign pushed forward by a single entity 
and a group of disgruntled former FBI employees who are known 
to have committed to attacking, smearing, and degrading career 
civil servants.
    So, why are we having the hearing? Why have we had all 
these hearings? What is the point of this Subcommittee? Because 
it is necessary for the public and the media to hear, to try 
and provide cover for the eradication of the Department of 
Justice and the FBI. We are having these hearings so that you 
become immune, you become inured to the notion of removal of 
the FBI and DOJ, so that those agencies are no longer there to 
serve as a check against White nationalism, great replacement 
theorists, Christian nationalists, White fragility, fascists, 
and the twice impeached convicted felon, former President and 
would-be dictator Donald Trump. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. I agree with one 
statement she said that this is going to be a consequential 
election. I agree with that. I would clarify for everyone just 
in case people are confused, the election is in 41 days, not 46 
days. Democrats may vote in 46 days, but Republicans will be 
voting in 41 days. Without objection all other opening 
statements will be included in the record.
    We will now introduce today's witnesses. The Honorable 
Michael Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of 
Justice, a position he has held since April 2012. Mr. Horowitz 
oversees a staff of more 500 special agents, auditors, 
attorneys, and support staff tasked with detecting and 
deterring waste, fraud, and abuse and misconduct in the 
Department. From 2015-2020, he served as the Chair of the 
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 
an oversight body for all 75 Inspectors General across the 
Federal Government. He has testified many times. We welcome him 
back to the Committee.
    Mr. Tristan Leavitt is an attorney and the President of 
Empower Oversight, an organization dedicated to enhancing 
independent oversight of government and corporate wrongdoing. 
Prior to joining Empower Oversight, Mr. Leavitt was a Senate-
confirmed member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which 
adjudicates whistleblower retaliation claims. He also 
previously served as the principal Deputy Special Counsel at 
the Office of Special Counsel which enforces whistleblower 
laws, among others. Mr. Leavitt, we welcome you back as well.
    Mr. Marcus Allen is a whistleblower and former Staff 
Operations Specialist with the FBI. He has served more than 20 
years as an intelligence professional. Prior to joining the 
FBI, Mr. Allen served in the United States Marine Corps 
including in Iraq, Kuwait, and Japan. He received multiple 
awards for his service and achievement in both the Marine Corps 
and the FBI. Despite his track record of a commitment to his 
country, the FBI retaliated against Mr. Allen for making 
protected disclosures. After having his security clearance 
suspended for more than two years, his retaliation claims were 
vindicated, and he reached a settlement with the FBI.
    Finally, Mr. Glenn Kirschner is a legal analyst and former 
Federal prosecutor. He served 24 years as an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney in the District of Columbia, and he served more than 
six years as a prosecutor with the United States Army Judge 
Advocate General.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise, 
raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in 
the affirmative. Thank you and you may be seated. Please know 
that your written testimony will be entered into the record in 
its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your 
testimony in five minutes. Again, you have all been in front of 
the Committee before and you understand the rules. So, we will 
start with Mr. Horowitz, go right down the line.
    Mr. Horowitz, you are recognized for your opening 
statement.

           STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ

    Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Plaskett, and the Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 
inviting me to testify today. Whistleblowers perform an 
important public service, and no employee should suffer 
reprisal for bringing forward information that they reasonably 
believe is evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or a violation of 
law.
    As we have seen, employees with a security clearance are 
particularly vulnerable to retaliation because of an employee's 
due process protections and right to appeal his security 
clearance suspension or revocation are more limited. Moreover, 
such employees can remain suspended with pay for lengthy 
periods of time for having an ability to contest the security 
clearance action.
    Federal law requires agencies to have an appeal process 
that enables employees alleging reprisal due to a security 
clearance revocation or suspension lasting more than one year 
to seek an Inspector General review of the reprisal allegation. 
The law also requires government agencies to establish a review 
process that to the extent practicable permits individuals with 
retaliation claims to retain their Government employment status 
while the security clearance review is pending.
    In May 2024, my office issued a management advisory 
memorandum, or MAM, finding that the Department's then-existing 
policy didn't include the required IG appeal process for 
suspensions. As we noted in the MAM, placing an employee who 
claims retaliation on unpaid suspension while a lengthy 
security clearance investigation is conducted can make it 
financially unrealistic for the employee to retain their 
Government employee status. Moreover, it creates the risk that 
the security process can be misused as part of an inappropriate 
effort to encourage an employee to resign. I am pleased that 
the Department has promptly responded to our MAM's 
recommendations.
    Separately, we have also received complaints about the 
security clearance suspension and adjudication process that go 
beyond the issues detailed in our MAM, including allegations of 
inconsistent compliance with standard operating procedures on 
the opening of security investigations, highly inappropriate 
questions being asked of witnesses during the security 
clearance investigations, inconsistent outcomes on security 
clearance suspension determinations, the suspension and 
revocation of an employee's eligibility to hold a clearance 
based on race, and retaliation against employees for raising 
concerns to management about security clearance suspensions' 
investigations and adjudication. These allegations raise 
serious issues, and I would note do not apply to only a subset 
of employees with certain political views or ideologies.
    During today's hearing for both investigative and privacy 
reasons, the only whistleblower retaliation matter that I can 
discuss is the one involving Mr. Allen. I am able to do so 
because Mr. Allen recently settled his employment claims with 
the FBI or against the FBI, with the FBI reinstating his 
security clearance and agreeing to provide him back pay. 
Following the settlement, Mr. Allen withdrew the retaliation 
complaint he had filed with my office, resulting in the OIG 
closing our retaliation investigation. Mr. Allen also waived 
any privacy rights that might otherwise prohibit me from 
discussing our investigation of the claims. As a result, I am 
able to discuss with you today the factual details we learned 
during our investigation, which will illustrate many of the 
systemic issues that we have seen with the security clearance 
process.
    For example, in Mr. Allen's case, his unpaid security 
clearance began in early 2022 and didn't end until the 
settlement in June 2024. Most employees in Mr. Allen's 
situation would find it unrealistic financially to retain their 
Government employee status for over two years without pay which 
is intention with the law's requirement that agencies allow 
individuals claiming retaliation to retain their employment 
status while the security review is ongoing.
    There are a number of other particularly important policy 
issues relating to protecting whistleblowers from retaliation 
that I look forward to discussing today including potential 
legislative issues and potential actions raised in the written 
testimony and correspondence submitted for today's hearing. As 
we seek, all of us I think, to ensure that the security 
clearance investigation and adjudication process is never used 
to retaliate against whistleblowers and people who bring 
forward in good faith claims of waste, fraud, misconduct, and 
abuse.
    Thank you again for the Committee's support and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Horowitz follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Inspector. We now recognize Mr. 
Leavitt for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF TRISTAN LEAVITT

    Mr. Leavitt. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and the 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to 
testify today. When Marcus sat here 16 months ago, the FBI 
smeared him with the lie that he was a threat to our national 
security. That lie was repeated here in this hearing room. One 
year later, the FBI reinstated his security clearance and 
agreed to restore 27 months of back pay. This amounts to an 
official admission by the FBI that claims about his disloyalty 
to the U.S. were false. His clearance should never have been 
revoked in the first place.
    This year, a whistleblower inside the FBI's Security 
Clearance Office has pulled back the curtain on the dysfunction 
and political bias in the Security Division. Last week, I sent 
a 22-page letter to the Committee outlining these problems. As 
that letter details, each and every one of the line-level 
employees who worked on the review believed Marcus should 
retain his security clearance. The initial investigator 
believed it, a second investigator believed it, the first 
adjudicator believed it, and the second adjudicator believed 
it.
    So, how did his clearance still get suspended and revoked 
contrary to both whistleblower retaliation and clearance 
adjudication law? The high-level officials, at least one of 
whom is still in the Security Division, overruled these line-
level staff and intimidated employees into doing what they 
wanted. Division employees lived in fear of a stranger bring 
the so-called Kelly Cart to their desk, to package up their 
belongings while they are escorted out of the building and 
fired. Sure enough, of the four-line level employees who worked 
on Marcus' case, two of them also suffered reprisal from the 
FBI for trying to treat him fairly. In fact, the entire 
leadership of the Division's Clearance Adjudication Unit was 
removed in September 2023, apparently in reprisal for standing 
up to improper direction from leadership.
    The Empower Oversight is now representing three current or 
former Security Division employees retaliated against by their 
managers. This summer, we disclosed to the public that the 
Security Division forced FBI employees to rat out their 
coworkers if they had ever heard them ''vocalize support for 
President Trump'' or ``vocalize objection to the COVID-19 
vaccination.'' We now understand that was just one 
manifestation of the FBI's politicized climate.
    Former Security Division leaders like Jeffrey Veltri, who 
is now running the investigation into the second assassination 
attempt on former President Trump, has a documented history of 
encouraging security clearance decisions based on political 
views and personal medical decisions. He and fellow manager, 
Dena Perkins, would often ask in staff meetings whether 
employees whose clearances were under investigation have 
received a vaccine. Veltri also suggested Marcus was delusional 
for being motivated by his sincerely held religious beliefs. 
The tone for this intolerance seems to have been set at the 
top. In a February 2021 call with FBI managers, Deputy Director 
Paul Abbate made but one observer call a chilling and personal 
direct threat that there would be consequences for anyone who 
questioned his direction.
    Given these statements, how is the American public supposed 
to have any confidence the decisions are being made at the FBI 
without personal bias or politicization? Over the past two 
months since the former President was nearly assassinated and 
one man was killed, the entire country has seen how critical 
Secret Service whistleblowers have been to providing even the 
smallest measure of transparency. Yet, those whistleblowers, 
like all other Federal law enforcement whistleblowers, have 
stronger protections than the whistleblowers at the FBI. As 
some of you know, fixing this was one of my top goals as a 
Congressional staffer a decade ago. The House Intelligence 
Committee has repeatedly blocked reforms in this area.
    Incredibly, the other prohibitive personnel practice laws 
that applied to the rest of DOJ don't apply to the FBI either. 
The FBI's internal handbook is the only prohibition on 
political coercion, nepotism, rigged hiring, and various other 
merit-based policies. How can you not end up with poor 
management and managers at an agency like that?
    OSC, my former agency, investigates the practices in these 
other agencies with recourse to the MSPB, another former agency 
of mine. For the FBI, Mr. Horowitz' office is tasked with these 
investigations, but his office doesn't have the legal authority 
OSC does to seek a stay of a personnel action from the MSPB 
while it investigates. Unlike MSPB, Mr. Horowitz' office can't 
force the FBI to take any particular corrective or disciplinary 
action even if it finds wrongdoing. Congress should fix this 
1970s relic of an exception for the FBI and empower OSC to 
investigate FBI personnel actions with appeals to MSPB and the 
courts.
    As a broad, bipartisan coalition of groups has argued, 
including in a letter that we submitted yesterday to the 
Committee, it is also time for Congress to overturn or narrow 
the 1988 Supreme Court case Navy v. Egan. Because of it, 
neither OSC nor MSPB review whether a security clearance action 
was taken as a form of whistleblower reprisal. That should 
change, especially because it is becoming the FBI's primary 
form of whistleblower retaliation.
    Allowing FBI to operate by some playbook for so long has 
also had other consequences. Just three weeks ago, MSPB issued 
an order to show cause why it shouldn't impose sanctions 
against the FBI in one case. The bipartisan three-person board 
wrote it is difficult to escape the idea that they have no 
intention of complying with the board's orders.
    Through the reforms I have outlined, Congress can restore 
the proper functioning of the Civil Service at the FBI. Both 
parties should support these changes. They would strengthen 
good government in the FBI no matter who sits in the White 
House or Director's Office. While there is no way to erase the 
suffering endured by Marcus and his family or Garret O'Boyle 
and his family and others, the FBI can hold accountable those 
who perpetrated it and Congress can turn it into something 
meaningful by using it as the impetus to finally change these 
laws. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Leavitt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Allen, you are 
recognized for five minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF MARCUS ALLEN

    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Members of the 
Committee, for the invitation to testify today. My name is 
Marcus Allen. I'm here to speak with the Committee about how 
the FBI weaponized the security clearance process to retaliate 
against me for protected whistleblower activity.
    In late 2021, I raised concerns about the FBI Director's 
testimony about the January 6th Capitol riot, not out of 
political motivation, but out of a duty to truth and integrity. 
This act, which I believe to be in the spirit of transparency 
and accountability, led to unexpected and severe consequences.
    Almost exactly three years ago today, I forwarded news 
articles to my superiors and others within the FBI about 
January 6th. It was literally one of my job duties to keep my 
colleagues informed about open source intelligence related to 
their cases.
    As a result of simply doing my job, the FBI accused me of 
promoting conspiratorial views and unreliable information. The 
FBI questioned my allegiance to the United States, suspended my 
security clearance, suspended my pay, and refused to allow me 
to obtain outside employment or even accept charity.
    This once storied institution whose initials, ironically, 
stand for fidelity, bravery, and integrity, was punishing me 
for bravely challenging their integrity, while they questioned 
my fidelity.
    The suspension, ultimately, lasted for 27 months. During 
that time, the FBI held my family and me in indefinite limbo, 
awaiting a final decision. Determined to not lose our home, my 
wife and I took early withdrawals from our retirement accounts 
to survive.
    It became clear that the FBI with endless resources, the 
American people's money, was trying to destroy me financially, 
so that I would give up. This is a fear of countless potential 
whistleblowers who see the personal cost of integrity.
    There are no words strong enough to describe the impact the 
FBI's lies about me have had on me and my family. The stress 
has taken a toll on our health and our children have suffered, 
traumatized by the thought of our door getting kicked in or dad 
not coming home. The battle for truth and justice will cost 
you, but the arduous good is worth it.
    The FBI's restoration of my clearance earlier this year, 
thanks to the efforts of Empower Oversight, and the American 
Center for Law and Justice, was absolute vindication. It's a 
point I would not have reached without the prior help of Bigley 
Ranish and Judicial Watch.
    However, the experience is also a stark reminder of the 
system's flaws. It took legal battles, public scrutiny, and 
patience over three long years.
    No other FBI whistleblower has ever had his clearance 
restored as I did. Garret O'Boyle and his family are still 
suffering in the same limbo we were with no access to due 
process and no limit on the FBI's ability to delay and avoid 
independent accountability. How many other whistleblowers 
remain silent, fearing the same ordeal my family and Garret's 
family faced with little hope of vindication at the end?
    Despite the stress and uncertainty, I've never once 
regretted standing up for truth. In fact, I'm grateful for the 
experience. Indeed, my family and I persevered due to our 
strength and faith, God's grace, and the sacraments.
    If you do not worship God, then you will worship something 
else. You can either serve God or you can serve mammon, but you 
can't serve both. This has been a purification. While we lost 
material items, we gained more important things. We've stored 
up for ourselves treasures in heaven. What we have gained 
spiritually has far outweighed what was lost materially.
    John Adams noted that the framework of our country was 
built for a moral, religious people, and unfit for the 
governance of any other. James Madison notes the duty to honor 
God is precedent, both in order of time and degree of 
obligation to the claims of civil society. Before any man can 
be considered as a member of civil society, he must be 
considered as a ``subject of the Governor of the universe.''
    I recently learned about comments made by Mr. Jeffrey 
Veltri suggesting I was delusional for believing in and seeking 
guidance from the Holy Spirit. Mr. Veltri currently serves as 
Special Agent in Charge of the Miami field office, but at the 
time he was an executive at Security Division, overseeing 
security clearance decisions. To Mr. Veltri, I say, ``You can 
insult me, but you should not mock God.'' It is an insult to 
the infinite dignity of God, who is Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, and is bad for the health of your soul.
    This isn't about me. It's bigger. I am hopeful that the 
truth of what happened will be fully revealed and deter the FBI 
from doing the same injustice to others.
    Though the path may be difficult, I must plead with other 
employees who have witnessed wrongdoing that they find the 
courage to speak up. You're not alone, nor will you ever be. 
Psalm 139 says, ``Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I 
flee from your presence?''
    I've been blessed to be supported by God's sanctifying 
grace, the blessed sacrament, men and women of goodwill, other 
whistleblowers, the charity of the American people, prayers, 
and great attorneys along the way like Tristan and Jason of 
Empower Oversight.
    Potential whistleblowers: Please do not be silenced by the 
FBI's mistreatment. We are all here to support you if you 
choose to come forward. ``The only thing necessary for the 
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Equally 
important is the awareness and involvement of the American 
people. This is your country.
    While I feel vindicated now in getting back my security 
clearance, it is sad that in the country for which I fought as 
a Marine, the FBI was allowed to lie about my loyalty to the 
United States for three years. Unless there is accountability, 
it will keep happening to others. Better oversight and changes 
to the security clearance laws are key to stopping the abuses 
suffered by whistleblowers like me.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Peace and 
all good.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Allen, and God bless.
    Mr. Kirschner, you are recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF GLENN KIRSCHNER

    Mr. Kirschner. Thank you Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Plaskett, and the Members of the Committee, good morning.
    My name is Glenn Kirschner, and for 30 years as a Federal 
prosecutor, I enforced the rule of law without fear or favor 
and without any political interference in the important 
prosecutorial decisions I was entrusted to make as a career 
civil servant and public servant.
    The rule of law is one of the single most important 
ingredients to a healthy democracy. Indeed, the rule of law 
applied without fear or favor may be second in importance only 
to a free, full, and unfettered ability of the people to 
exercise their right to vote.
    I served in the Federal Government continuously under every 
President from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. Beginning in the 
1980s, I served on active duty with the U.S. Army Judge 
Advocate General's Corps, first, prosecuting court-martial 
cases, then handling criminal appeals in all manner of cases, 
including espionage and death penalty.
    After 6\1/2\ years as an Army JAG, I left military service 
and joined the Department of Justice, where I served 24 years 
as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of 
Columbia.
    The decisions prosecutors make day-in and day-out--whether 
to open grand jury investigations, whether to seek indictments, 
whether to proceed to trial--these decisions and virtually 
every other prosecutorial decision must be made without any 
political pressure from anyone. They must be made in an 
entirely apolitical fashion based exclusively on the facts and 
the law.
    Unfortunately, that is not what Project 2025 has in mind 
for the United States Department of Justice. When I look at the 
goals and aspirations of Project 2025, I can't help but 
evaluate them against the backdrop of what I saw happen to the 
Department of Justice during the Trump administration.
    As we sit here, one of Donald Trump's DOJ officials, 
Jeffrey Clark, is a criminally indicted RICO coconspirator and 
codefendant together with Donald Trump for trying to subvert 
the 2020 Presidential election in the State of Georgia.
    I think back to Donald Trump. After being told by his DOJ 
officials that there was no systemic fraud undermining the 
results of the 2020 Presidential election, telling those same 
officials, ``Just say the election was corrupt and leave the 
rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.'' That's a quote 
from a Donald Trump Department of Justice official.
    Thank goodness there were some DOJ officials who thwarted 
Donald Trump's efforts in that regard--officials who remained 
loyal to the Constitution, rather than loyal to a man who was 
determined to retain the power of the presidency by 
disregarding the expressed will of the American voters.
    These honorable public servants would not exist in a future 
Trump Administration that implements the rule-of-law-busting 
principles of Project 2025. I fear that horrific conduct of 
former President Donald Trump and his corrupt DOJ officials in 
his first term will look like a government official fixing a 
parking ticket for a friend, as compared to what Project 2025 
holds in store.
    Project 2025's overarching goal for impacting the way DOJ 
goes about its work is to destroy the independence and 
apolitical nature of the work done by thousands of honorable, 
ethical, and dedicated civil servants, who in my experience in 
24 years inside the Department of Justice go about their work 
in an entirely apolitical fashion, and replace them with Trump 
allies, loyalists, and sycophants. This is a so-called Schedule 
F approach to weaponizing the Department of Justice.
    Quoting from some of the truly despicable language that can 
be found in Project 2025's pages, DOJ is alleged to be a, 
quote,

        Bloated bureaucracy with a critical core of personnel who are 
        infatuated with the perpetration of a radical liberal agenda 
        and the defeat of perceived political enemies.

I spent 24 years inside DOJ. That characterization is dead 
wrong and untrue.
    As one example of the dangers to law enforcement 
independence represented by Project 2025, consider this 
scenario: Once Donald Trump has his loyalists in place in the 
Department of Justice, if a report of possible voter fraud is 
referred to DOJ, Donald Trump's officials could screen or 
evaluate that claim with just one simple question: Does the 
alleged voter fraud work to the advantage of Republican 
candidates--so, by extension, to the advantage of Donald Trump? 
If the fraud benefits Trump, his Project 2025 officials can 
simply decline to investigate, summarily claiming there's 
insufficient evidence to open a criminal probe.
    If the alleged voter fraud worked to Trump's disadvantage, 
then the investigation could be initiated, regardless of 
whether or not the evidence supported that decision. This is 
simply a variation on the theme: I don't care if there was no 
voter fraud undermining the elections results; just say there 
was and leave the rest to me and my loyalists in the Department 
of Justice.
    If Project 2025 is implemented, there will be no need for a 
corrupt President to recruit DOJ officials to join his criminal 
endeavor, as the conspiracy will already be in place. Project 
2025's determination to extinguish the independence of the 
Department of Justice looks a lot like a blueprint for 
autocracy.
    I thank you for your invitation to appear today and look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kirschner follows:]
 
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Kirschner.
    The gentleman yields back.
    We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions.
    The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, in light of that ranting from Mr. 
Kirschner, and the understanding that he has a long history 
working in the Department of Justice, I can understand why 
we're in the mess that we're in.
    We now have the details on what the DOJ is required by law 
to do and its intentional violation of the law and the impact 
that this has on DOJ employees in the form of the loss of the 
ability to earn a living and having their lives destroyed.
    I want to take a step back and ask the question: Why did 
they do it? I suppose for the same kind of reasons that Mr. 
Kirschner was just outlining, because they have some obsession 
of something that is actually not real.
    They also didn't just violate the law for the sake of 
violating the law. They did so with the explicit intent of 
targeting a certain class of employees, and in this instance, 
those they perceived to be conservatives.
    One whistleblower stated, quote,

        That if an FBI employee for a certain profile is a political 
        conservative, they were viewed as security concerns and 
        unworthy to work to the FBI.

I assume Mr. Kirschner has the same viewpoint.
    Mr. Allen, does a person's political beliefs, and most 
specifically, holding conservative views, disqualify someone 
from serving in the FBI?
    Mr. Allen. No, ma'am, they do not.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, then, based on your experience as an FBI 
veteran and target of the DOJ's unlawful acts, why do you think 
this political purity campaign is ongoing inside the FBI?
    Mr. Allen. I'm not fully aware of why they are getting rid 
of people with more conservative views or potentially not 
wanting people to speak out at this time, ma'am.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, then, I think your testimony is that 
they also are trying to get rid of anyone who holds Christian 
values and Christian beliefs. Is that your experience as well?
    Mr. Allen. That is my experience, especially when you see 
the comments that were leveled against me in the findings 
during the investigation.
    Ms. Hageman. So, we have the gentleman sitting next to you 
ranting and raving about this Project 2025--I doubt that he 
really understands anything about it--but ranting and raving 
about that but doesn't seem to be at all bothered by the fact 
that you were targeted because you were a conservative and 
Christian. Do you find that odd?
    Mr. Allen. I do find it a bit surprising. We shouldn't be 
targeting groups of people within our organizations because of 
firmly held belief or any kind of political standpoint.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Leavitt, beside the violation of 
whistleblower protection laws, the FBI is also, for example, 
using First Amendment protected speech and activity which 
occurs outside of work to punish its employees. Were the 
officials involved in this unlawful conduct, such as Acting 
Assistant Section Chief Dena Perkins and Deputy Assistant 
Director Jeffrey Veltri punished or in any way held accountable 
for their violation of employees' First Amendment rights?
    Mr. Leavitt. Not that I'm aware of. I know Ms. Perkins is 
still in the same position and Mr. Veltri received a promotion 
to the fifth-largest FBI office in the country, the Miami field 
office. I do whistle--according to whistleblowers, that 
promotion was delayed because he was under investigation for 
whistleblower retaliation, but that wasn't for the targeting of 
individuals for their First Amendment views.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. So, in this administration--and again, 
while ranting about Project 2025 in this administration--you 
can actually violate employees' First Amendment rights and get 
promoted? Is that what your testimony is?
    Mr. Leavitt. I don't know why the FBI didn't look at this 
closer. Because, again, it's clear that there was a widespread 
understanding that these were issues being looked at; that 
these were the considerations.
    I know Mr. Horowitz has talked about them, not exclusively 
only targeting conservatives, but all the individuals that have 
come to us from these various whistleblowers, there's one 
counter-example of somebody who wasn't conservative. All the 
others that we've seen, there was a clear focus on these 
individuals' vaccination status, their First Amendment views, 
their political stances, and that seems to have been accepted 
by leadership of the FBI.
    Ms. Hageman. Boy, the FBI has really been weaponized 
against not only the American public, but its own employees, 
hasn't it?
    Mr. Leavitt. It's sad. The term ``weaponization,'' 
obviously, can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but 
when you see the direct impact on someone's life like Marcus 
and his family to go 27 months without pay, as of today, he 
still has not received the 27 months of back pay that the FBI 
committed to give him. Similarly, for Garret O'Boyle, the 
amount of time they've gone--I think 23 months at this point--
it truly has ruined their lives.
    Mr. Kirschner. Well, what does this actually say about the 
Department of Justice, FBI, and their interest in actually 
righting the wrongdoing and the unlawful acts that they've 
engaged in?
    Mr. Leavitt. It's hard to make those kinds of sweeping 
conclusions, but I definitely would say that the way that you 
help keep people--you help them abide by good things by having 
good laws in place. I firmly believe there need to be stronger 
laws to help prevent this kind of thing in the future. There 
has to be changes to protect FBI whistleblowers, no matter what 
administration or what political party is in power.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, and I would agree with that.
    Mr. Allen, I'm sorry for what the Federal Government did to 
you. I think it's an absolute crime against humanity the way 
that you were treated. I respect your faith; respect your 
loyalty to this country, and we all recognize that what the FBI 
did was wrong. Thank you for being here.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
    Mr. Connolly. I would just ask, Mr. Chair, if we could 
stick to some decorum and not disparage witnesses or 
characterize their testimony. They are here as guests of the 
Committee, and we should treat all of them with respect.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Kirschner, the Project 2025 document which was drafted 
by six of the former Cabinet Secretaries and about 140 
individuals who worked in the Trump Administration, with regard 
to the FBI, says that the FBI has been ``captured by an 
unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class and radical left 
ideologues.''
    How long were you with the FBI? Your mic.
    Mr. Kirschner. I was with the Department of Justice, 
specifically, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 
Columbia just up the street here, for 24 years. I wasn't with 
the FBI.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. Are you aware of the close connection 
between the United States military and the FBI?
    Mr. Kirschner. The United States military and the FBI?
    Mr. Lynch. Yes. Well, we've got a--yes, there's a--
    Mr. Kirschner. I'm sorry, the ``close connection'' meaning?
    Mr. Lynch. Well, there's a veterans' preference law, 
military veterans--
    Mr. Kirschner. In hiring?
    Mr. Lynch. In hiring, going to the FBI.
    Mr. Kirschner. Sure. I'm generally familiar with that.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. Why don't I ask, why don't I ask Mr. 
Horowitz?
    Mr. Horowitz, anything in your experience indicate that the 
FBI has been taken over by, as they say, a radical left 
ideology?
    Mr. Horowitz. We haven't found that, Congressman.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. Mr. Kirschner--
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes?
    Mr. Lynch. --going back to Project 2025, the Project 2025 
indicates that, to ensure the promotion of the President's 
agenda the FBI should ``Ensure the assignment of sufficient 
political appointees throughout the Department,'' and 
throughout DOJ.
    Mr. Kirschner. Representative, you must have read my mind 
because that's the very page of Project 2025 I just opened to. 
It's, specifically, page 569.
    Mr. Lynch. Let's talk about that then.
    Mr. Kirschner. Please.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. So, right now, Mr. Horowitz, we don't allow 
political appointees within the FBI, is that correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. That, correct, other than the Director who's 
confirmed by the Senate.
    Mr. Lynch. Right, at the top. That's correct, right. I'll 
come back to you on that.
    So, this Project 2025 indicates that they're going to 
ensure the assignment of sufficient political appointees 
through the Department. Not simply replicating what was done 
under previous administrations and reflected in the Plum Book, 
this is right from Project 2025.

        The number of appointees serving throughout the Department in 
        prior administrations, particularly during the Trump 
        Administration, has not been sufficient, either to stop bad 
        things from happening through proper management or to promote 
        the President's agenda.

Let's talk about that.
    What would the impact be if we, all of a sudden, just 
allowed the President to start putting political hacks, people 
who were his henchmen, into the FBI to pursue his agenda?
    Mr. Kirschner. If you populate the upper echelon of these 
agencies with political appointees who have to pledge loyalty 
to the President, and the very language you cited, ``Ensure the 
assignment of sufficient political appointees throughout 
department'' to do what? ``To stop bad things from happening.'' 
That's a quote. Who decides what bad things are? ``And to 
promote the President's agenda.'' There's nothing there about 
``and to make sure you're making decisions based on facts and 
law, without fear of favor.'' This sounds to me to be the exact 
opposite of what we want our civil servants and our appointees 
to be doing.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
    Back to Inspector General Horowitz, thank you for your good 
work.
    Can you talk about what the implications would be if the 
next administration were to allow, ought to inject political 
appointees throughout the FBI organization and throughout the 
Department of Justice?
    Mr. Horowitz. Well, I'll speak generally to why Congress 
has in the past--
    Mr. Lynch. Please.
    Mr. Horowitz. --had only the FBI Director been the only 
political appointee and that person has to go through the 
Senate confirmation process.
    Obviously, we want our law enforcement--whether it's 
Federal, State, or local, to be people who may have--I've 
testified about this before--wide-ranging views. There is no 
problem with our law enforcement having deeply held political 
views. In fact, for most of us, we would want our law 
enforcement officers to be engaged with their communities and 
understand their communities and be participants in it.
    We shouldn't, certainly wouldn't want them to effectuate 
the use of our laws to advance a political cause or an 
ideology. Frankly, through our work, through my tenure as IG, 
my predecessor's tenure as IG, as we all know, there have been 
times when the FBI has strayed both ways.
    You could talk about Dr. King and the illegal wiretapping 
that occurred with him. We saw it in work we've done, 
obviously, more recently. We have done investigations involving 
the FBI's looking into, back in 2004, both the Democratic and 
the Republican convention, issues around those.
    So, we've seen this over the years. It's very important to 
have hearings and have Congressional oversight and effective 
internal reviews, like we do, to ensure that law enforcement 
operates in an unbiased way and not based on ideology.
    Mr. Lynch. The injection of political appointees,would that 
help the cause of a more judicious FBI and Department of 
Justice?
    Mr. Horowitz. Well, it certainly would create risks of 
that, Congressman, and I'm assuming that's why Congress over 
the years has not authorized the Department or Federal law 
enforcement to have more political appointees in their realm. 
That's true, by the way, at the Department and the other law 
enforcement agencies as well. I know we're talking about the 
FBI, but that's true with DEA and others as well.
    Mr. Lynch. Thanks for your courtesy, Mr. Chair, and I yield 
back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Allen, September 29, 2021, you sent an email 
questioning Director Wray's testimony in front of Congress. You 
said in that email, ``There is good possibility the D.C. 
elements of our organization are not being forthright about the 
events of January 6th.'' Do you remember that email?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. You didn't send that to anyone; you sent that 
to the people you're supposed to send it to, members of the 
Joint Terrorism Task Force, is that right?
    Mr. Allen. That's correct.
    Chair Jordan. Now, the very next day I find to be 
interesting. On September 30, 2021, the next day, it just so 
happened your 5-year reauthorization for your security 
clearance came due and they said, no problem, Mr. Allen should 
keep his security clearance; after all, he's had it for 20 
years. Right?
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. That happened the next day?
    Mr. Allen. Correct, sir.
    Chair Jordan. A decorated Marine veteran, Employee of the 
Year at the Charlotte field office, had a security clearance 
for 20 years. They reauthorized your security clearance.
    Something else happened that next day. Your email got 
forwarded to the Security Division and to Mr. Veltri, is that 
right?
    Mr. Allen. That's correct.
    Chair Jordan. Then, 19 days later, Mr. Veltri opened an 
investigation into your security clearance status.
    Did I get all those facts right, Mr. Leavitt? Is that what 
happened with Marcus in those two days, and then, 19 days 
later?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes, except for we--it's, from what we can 
tell, Veltri directed that day that it be opened. It's just 
that the underlings under him didn't carry that out until 19 
days later.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. He directed they look into a guy, a 
decorated Marine veteran, held a security clearance for 20--
they look into him because Mr. Allen said there's a chance the 
FBI leadership hasn't been square with us. Right?
    Mr. Leavitt. That's correct.
    Chair Jordan. He cited The New York Times article; they 
thought the same thing. Oh, by the way, there's the history 
that we all know about. The FBI spied on the President's 
campaign, lied to the FISA Court, investigated parents at 
school board meetings; and said, ``if you're a pro-life 
Catholic, you're an extremist.'' So, we got all that history, 
and he gets investigated for that, because he simply questioned 
the leadership. He went through the appropriate channels.
    Mr. Horowitz, did Mr. Veltri and the people at the Security 
Division follow the standard process?
    Mr. Horowitz. They did not.
    Chair Jordan. They did not. In fact, isn't it true that, 
Mr. Leavitt, some of the people--I think you cited four of them 
in your statement. Four people--the initial investigator, the 
second investigator, the first adjudicator, and another 
adjudicator--all got reassigned. They all agreed that Mr. Allen 
should keep his security clearance; this investigation 
shouldn't have happened. They get reassigned or something 
happens to them?
    Mr. Leavitt. Four of them, all did not recommend that there 
be a negative action on it. Two of them were reassigned.
    Chair Jordan. Two were reassigned. Some of them are 
whistleblowers now, right?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes, absolutely.
    Chair Jordan. Man, if that's not political, I don't know 
what is.
    Oh, and they didn't stop there. They piled on. They also 
said that Mr. Allen, he questioned whether he should get the 
vaccine or not. They came after him for that, is that right, 
Mr. Leavitt?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Then, they went after his faith, a direct 
attack on the First Amendment. Because he's a Christian; 
because he's a Catholic; because he takes his faith seriously, 
oh, my goodness, we've got to take his security clearance away 
from him, even though he served our country, a decorated 
Marine, and held a security clearance for 20 years. That sure 
looks political to me, Inspector General Horowitz. Does it look 
political to you?
    Mr. Horowitz. Well, Congressman, as I said earlier, we've 
seen issues with the FBI and how it's treated whistleblowers, 
frankly, across the spectrum. I agree with you it's very 
concerning that would be done here, but--
    Chair Jordan. Well, we know they're political because, 
while all this is going on, they used the questionnaire, isn't 
that right, Mr. Leavitt? Isn't that right, they used this 
questionnaire? To people they wanted to snitch on folks like 
Marcus Allen, they gave them a questionnaire?
    Mr. Leavitt. Those were used in the case of a handful of 
employees, and I know that Mr. Horowitz' office is looking at 
that. I think it is important to note that the questionnaire 
wasn't the only thing, right, that these questions were asked 
across--
    Chair Jordan. I understand that. I am talking about the way 
they piled on to go after Mr. Allen--
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. --and keep his security clearance and keep 
his pay from him for 27 months. They did the same thing to 
Garret O'Boyle. What that has meant--as you indicated in your 
testimony, what that has meant to his family and Mr. O'Boyle's 
family. This questionnaire said did anyone ever vocalize 
support for President Trump? All right. You are allowed to say 
things about the President of the United States when you work 
in the FBI, aren't you, Mr. Horowitz?
    Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry?
    Chair Jordan. You are allowed to say you support a 
President? You are allowed to say that in the FBI?
    Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Horowitz. Those questions are highly inappropriate.
    Chair Jordan. You are allowed to decide what kind of health 
decisions you are going to make with your own body, right?
    Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. Those shouldn't be grounds for saying you are 
somehow disloyal to the country. That is what they did. Highly 
inappropriate questions being asked of witnesses during 
security clearance investigations. That is your testimony, 
right, Mr. Horowitz?
    Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
    Chair Jordan. He got reinstated just recently.
    You got reinstated, right, Marcus?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Why haven't they give you your money?
    Mr. Allen. I am not aware of why it's taking them four 
months to cut a check for all the back pay. I have no idea why 
it's taking that long.
    Chair Jordan. They put you through pure heck, pure hell for 
27 months, falsely accused you. They go through the process. 
Four people get reassigned because they agree with you, but the 
politics of Mr. Veltri, who, oh, by the way, as Mr. Leavitt 
pointed out, is now running the second assassination 
investigation on President Trump in Miami. I find that just 
astonishing. They won't pay you.
    Mr. Allen. Right. We're still waiting for the pay out now.
    Chair Jordan. When was the final agreement? When was the 
final settlement with the FBI? What was the date, Mr. Leavitt?
    Mr. Leavitt. June 1st.
    Chair Jordan. Well, they have had time. Doesn't take that 
long to write a check, for goodness sake. So, he is still 
waiting. That is how our FBI treats a good man who has served 
our country for 20-plus years. It is ridiculous. Yet, the 
Democrats say there is no weaponization. You got to be kidding 
me.
    My time is expired. I now recognize the gentlelady from 
California.
    Ms. Sanchez. So, you want to talk about weaponization of 
the Department of Justice? Let's talk about it. Because sadly 
for Republicans weaponization tends to be in the eye of the 
beholder, the delight in talking about false allegations of 
politicized attacks on Republicans. I want to talk about the 
real weaponization, the one that would come from a second 
Trump-led Department of Justice.
    We are already watching in horror as women across the 
country lose their autonomy, their dignity, and even their 
lives, because of draconian abortion bans in dozens of States 
which Trump delights in his--he brags about choosing the 
Supreme Court Justices that overturned Roe v. Wade. If we get 
into a second Trump presidency, the weaponization we are 
witnessing will be orchestrated by the DOJ at Trump's demand.
    Trumps Project 2025 mandate for leadership calls for some 
of the most restrictive abortion and healthcare bans 
imaginable. In short, it lays out the path to eradicate 
reproductive healthcare and women's privacy. It calls for the 
CDC and HHS to closely monitor and report on individual women's 
health and abortions, keeping track of when women travel across 
State lines to seek reproductive healthcare and at what stage 
of their pregnancy they are in when they do. Alarmingly it 
calls for the DOJ to criminally punish abortion providers who 
distribute abortion medication through the mail.
    Mr. Kirschner, one of the proposals I mentioned is for the 
CDC to track women's movements to access abortions across State 
lines. The mandate also calls for the President to be able to 
direct the investigations and litigation by the FBI and the 
DOJ. So, hypothetically, even though that CDC-related part of 
the proposal didn't mention DOJ prosecutions, there are risks 
that a far-right government outlined in Trump's Project 2025, 
collecting that data, could weaponize it against the women 
seeking healthcare in a criminal context. Is that correct?
    Mr. Kirschner. It is.
    Ms. Sanchez. So, in other words, it would be possible to 
take CDC data about women who have sought abortions and direct 
the DOJ and the FBI to target those individuals. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Kirschner. It is, yes. Tracking women who are 
pregnant--horribly reminiscent of tracking and hunting animals. 
It really endangers--
    Ms. Sanchez. Like stalking?
    Mr. Kirschner. It endangers people.
    Ms. Sanchez. It is like stalking. Let's be honest. Tracking 
the movements of women. The mandate also calls for the 
enforcement of restrictions on DOJ grants to comply with 
conservative ideology such as prohibiting sanctuary cities from 
receiving Federal funding. Would it be possible then that DOJ 
grants could be conditioned on jurisdictions limiting abortion 
or other healthcare access?
    Mr. Kirschner. Under Project 2025 it seems like the sky is 
the limit.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. These extreme restrictions are far 
from the only alarming agenda points in Trump's Project 2025. 
The document also calls for dismantling the Department of 
Education which Former President Trump claimed he would do 
during a rally in Pennsylvania just this week. It calls for 
allowing businesses to discriminate against protected classes. 
It calls for reversal of the LGBTQ+ equity focus of the Biden 
Administration. If any of these proposals were to be challenged 
in a court, Trump's corrupt Justice Department, led by 
loyalists, would defend these awful provisions.
    Mr. Kirschner, if any of these offensive proposals are 
challenged, they will be defended by the Department of Justice. 
What could be the result if the DOJ is more loyal to President 
Trump than to the Constitution?
    Mr. Kirschner. They could decline to take up challenges or 
they could decide to take up challenges not based on the rule 
of law, not based on what is right for the American people, but 
based on the whims and preferences of a President.
    Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Horowitz, my final question is for you. 
Would we want agents at the FBI or any other government agency 
who would be seeking to promote any cause that might conflict 
with the Constitution, whether that be religious or ideological 
or loyalty to an individual rather than the Constitution?
    Mr. Horowitz. We would not. We swear our employees in with 
an oath to abide by the Constitution, the laws of this country.
    Ms. Sanchez. So, does it seem like a great idea to scrap 
our complete civil service and pack every Federal agency with 
people that are loyal more to an individual than to the 
Constitution, or more to religious ideology, or more to some 
other kind of ideology?
    Mr. Horowitz. I think over the years Congress has found 
where the appropriate balance is between having noncareer 
officials and political appointees leading agencies on policy 
issues and having a career civil service.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Ms. Sanchez. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Issa. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. President Trump has never read Project 2025, 
much less adopted it, unlike the viewpoint adopted by the 
sitting Vice President, which is that we should have taxpayer-
funded sex change operations for illegal aliens in prison. I 
try to be a little open-minded when I hear a provocative 
argument and I just sort of wonder when would I be in favor of 
taxpayer-funded sex change operations for the illegal aliens? 
Maybe, if it was mandatory, maybe if it wasn't optional but 
mandatory, it would be a pretty substantial deterrent at the 
border.
    To the matter at hand. Mr. Allen, it is good to see you 
again. You came last year, and you told us about these terrible 
things the Department of Justice was doing to you, and you have 
testified today you still don't think the Department of Justice 
has treated whistleblowers like yourself and others fairly. Is 
that your testimony?
    Mr. Allen. That's correct. The treatment is unfair.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you agree with that assessment, Mr. Horowitz?
    Mr. Horowitz. As I said in my testimony, Congressman, I 
think putting someone like Mr. Allen on unpaid leave for 20-
plus--for two-years is unfair while you are trying to 
adjudicate.
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. Yes. No, I get that.
    Mr. Horowitz. There needs to be a process here that happens 
promptly.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, the process was to punish these people and 
to make an example of them. That is obvious to everyone. They 
saw improper actions at the FBI and DOJ. They blew the whistle 
on it. Then the process was the punishment. It was the point. I 
think that is how Mr. Allen feels. Is it?
    Mr. Allen. Correct. The process in this instance definitely 
felt like the punishment.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right. Yes, so they have done it to you; they 
have done to others. Mr. Horowitz says it shouldn't have been 
done. So, now I want to be a little reflective about this with 
Congress.
    Mr. Allen, you have seen since you have given us this 
testimony us continue to pass continuing resolutions that put 
no consequence on the DOJ or the FBI for what they have done to 
you and your colleagues. Do you think Congress has 
appropriately protected whistleblowers?
    Mr. Allen. I do not, Congressman, and I think the policy 
recommendations can be put forward that there can be bipartisan 
support to protect whistleblowers going forward in the future.
    Mr. Gaetz. Absolutely. I mean this in no way as a partisan 
critique. Matter of fact, it is a bipartisan critique that we 
all own.
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Because we see the evidence that you get 
mistreated. We hear from the experts like Mr. Horowitz that 
this is totally off-book. It is obvious to anyone with a brain 
they are doing it to hurt you, and to make an example out of 
you. What do we do? We just sign the check, and we just send it 
over.
    We should put in any continuing resolution that until you 
get paid and until the rest of the whistleblowers get their 
back pay maybe the FBI Director doesn't get his paycheck. Maybe 
the Attorney General shouldn't get his paycheck. Maybe the FBI 
Director shouldn't get the use of the private jet that he likes 
to fly around the country on so much. They enjoy all the 
accoutrements of their position, and you end up screwed. We are 
OK with it apparently.
    Any Member votes for these continuing resolutions is voting 
to perpetuate the punishment that has been instituted on the 
whistleblowers. While we want to talk about the weaponization 
of the Justice Department, rightfully so, we write the check 
for it, and we underwrite the debt for it. It sickening to me.
    Mr. Horowitz, I have got a few questions for you since we 
got you here. Now, the CIGIE is the Council of the Inspectors 
General on Integrity and Efficiency, right?
    Mr. Horowitz. That's right.
    Mr. Gaetz. You are the past Chair?
    Mr. Horowitz. I was the Chair from 2015-2020.
    Mr. Gaetz. Does it have any binding legal authority?
    Mr. Horowitz. In terms--I mean it was created by Congress 
as an agency.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but does it have like legal authority to 
issue subpoenas that it can compel?
    Mr. Horowitz. It has not been given subpoena authority.
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. So, what I wonder is where this group 
CIGIE--
    Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. --I will just call it the Integrity Committee--
what happens when they start interfering in the work of IGs to 
expose corruption? Who adjudicates that?
    Mr. Horowitz. So, Congress actually created the Integrity 
Committee again back in 2008 and gave it's authorities. The 
Integrity Committee puts forth a set of policies and 
procedures. It's required to provide them to Congress. That's 
the mechanism--
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but in a State of conflict, right, where 
you have got an IG. You are working to expose corruption and 
then you have got the CIGIE hassling the IG. Who resolves that?
    Mr. Horowitz. Well--
    Mr. Gaetz. Because in the CIGIE is the head of it, is not 
like confirmed by the Senate, but IGs are confirmed by the 
Senate.
    Mr. Horowitz. Yes, and it probably in part depends on--
there are two types of IGs. There's Presidentially nominated 
and Senate-confirmed IGs. There's agency IGs. For 
Presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed IGs ultimately 
it's up to the President to decide what it wants because the 
report goes to the President--
    Mr. Gaetz. The Presidential power, not to get into a 
Constitutional--
    Mr. Horowitz. Right.
    Mr. Gaetz. --regression here, but the Presidential power is 
vested in the IG, not in this Administrative Committee, right?
    Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. Great. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Connolly, but would 
you indulge me to just clarify something?
    Mr. Connolly. Certainly.
    Mr. Issa. Inspector Horowitz, you are Senate-confirmed, and 
you were the head of CIGIE, is that correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
    Mr. Issa. I just wanted to make it clear.
    Mr. Horowitz. Yes, I was Senate-confirmed for DOJ IG.
    Mr. Issa. Right.
    Mr. Horowitz. I think the point was that the Chair of CIGIE 
doesn't have to be Senate-confirmed. I happened to be Senate-
confirmed sitting in that position.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear.
    The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Kirschner--and by the way I apologize at least on 
behalf of this side of the Committee for a disparagement 
characterizing your testimony. I don't think we should ever do 
that in a Committee. We don't have to agree.
    Mr. Kirschner. Thank you, Representative Connolly. I'm from 
New Jersey, so I've suffered worse.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, I am from Boston originally. We don't 
like that.
    Mr. Kirschner, Mr. Leavitt's client Garret O'Boyle posted 
the names and personally identifying information including 
parts of home addresses for four current or former FBI 
officials. In August Kyle Seraphin, who has hosted multiple 
podcasts with Mr. O'Boyle, tweeted, and I quote,

        The people who left Garret O'Boyle's family and my family 
        homeless should experience what guys like us are prepared to do 
        to evil.

    Mr. Kirschner, you have served in the FBI. What is wrong 
with identifying FBI officials' partial addresses, hometowns, 
personal information, and making a threat? You may justify it 
because you think they are engaged in evil, but that is a 
direct threat from the way I read it. What could go wrong with 
that kind of thing and isn't that the kind of threat of 
violence that I think ought to be examined by a Weaponization 
Committee as opposed to what we are doing here today? Your 
view?
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes, sir. Thank you. So, I wasn't with the 
FBI though. I was with the Department of Justice, the U.S. 
Attorney's Office right up the street there, but I will tell 
you I worked closely with the FBI, the Washington Field Office 
directly across the street from my former office. We moved 
heaven and earth to prevent personal information from getting 
out about your witnesses, about people we were investigating, 
so as they--to prevent them from being unfairly perhaps smeared 
with an investigation that didn't result in an indictment.
    I had my fair share of witnesses killed in Washington, DC, 
because their information got out. They were labeled as 
snitches. Then, I had to sit with the families of a witness and 
talk about how very sorry I was for what happened to them 
because that information got out.
    Mr. Connolly. So, while we are bemoaning the alleged 
mistreatment of certain individuals, including some here today, 
which may or may not be true, we are escalating it with actual 
threats that could lead to violence, even death. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Kirschner. You endanger the lives of folks when you put 
that kind of information out into the public square.
    Mr. Connolly. Certain irony. Certain irony when we are 
worked about weaponization while meanwhile some of the people 
we purport to be advocating for are engaged in this kind of 
activity, threatening FBI agents.
    Mr. Horowitz, there have been allegations made that the FBI 
has weaponized security clearance revocations to target a and 
root out conservatives at the bureau. Have you any found any 
such evidence of a broad pattern of trying to target 
conservatives and revoking their security clearances?
    Mr. Horowitz. We have not made such a finding.
    Mr. Connolly. Have you made any findings that the FBI 
security clearance process targets Christians?
    Mr. Horowitz. We have not made such a finding.
    Mr. Connolly. Have you made any findings that the FBI 
leadership is targeting military veterans?
    Mr. Horowitz. We've not made such a finding.
    Mr. Connolly. Have you made any findings that Jeffrey 
Veltri, now the special agent in charge of FBI's Miami Field 
Office, was biased against conservatives?
    Mr. Horowitz. We haven't made any findings with regard to 
Mr. Veltri.
    Mr. Connolly. Have made any findings that the FBI wrongly 
revoked the clearance of former Special Agent Garret O'Boyle?
    Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to speak about any particular 
case because we have matters ongoing. So, as I am answering 
those questions, I'm talking about what we've done as of today.
    Mr. Connolly. OK. We will stipulate that, but would it be 
fair to summarize your answers to the previous questions? You 
haven't found any pattern of ideological or religious bias by 
the FBI with respect to those issues, is that correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. What we've found, as I 
mentioned earlier in our past work, is frankly issues on 
occasion with the FBI, and frankly other law enforcement 
agencies in other parts of the Department acting 
inappropriately with regard to whistleblowers--
    Mr. Connolly. That is different than a pattern.
    Mr. Horowitz. That's different than a pattern.
    Mr. Connolly. That is different than a pattern.
    Finally, Mr. Kirschner, as a child of the 1960s, I find it 
almost humorous to hear characterizations of the FBI as this 
hotbed of liberal, if not leftist ideology. I am going to give 
you the last word on that. It seems to me the FBI has always 
been a fairly conservative culture and certainly a right-of-
center political bent, if there was one. What is your view?
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes, sir. I had a lot of knock-down, drag-
out discussions with lots of FBI agents over the course of an 
investigation whether we should indict, who we should indict, 
what we should indict, but I never believed any of it was born 
of politics or their ideological beliefs or preferences. It 
never was in my experience. That's why I find this topic a 
little curious.
    Mr. Issa. The gentleman's time is expired. I will now 
recognize myself.
    Inspector Horowitz, would it be fair to characterize you as 
one of the institutionalists of the IG, long-serving, and a 
career that, without patting yourself overly on the back--but, 
deservedly that has been about promoting the responsible 
behavior of the IG in the performance of their duty?
    Mr. Horowitz. Congressman, that's certainly how I viewed 
myself and my responsibilities through my time here as IG.
    Mr. Issa. Well, that is how this Committee and other 
Committees of the Congress view you for four years of service 
and I want to thank you.
    This is a difficult hearing because many people perhaps 
would like to make this not about weaponization. In your many 
years of experience the personal actions of individuals, for 
whatever reason, including an unstated bias, leads to bad 
conduct including H.R. wrongdoing. Is that correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. One of the hardest things--
jobs we have is, you know from the work you've worked on, I've 
worked on, is understanding and figuring out motives.
    Mr. Issa. You often never know the motive. You only know 
that the action was inconsistent with policy, law, and the 
like?
    Mr. Horowitz. We do our--that's correct. We do our best, 
for example, in the Fast and Furious work, the FISA work, 
others, to look at as much email, text messages, instant 
messages, et cetera, to try and understand whether there was 
evidence of motive or what the evidence of motive was.
    Mr. Issa. So, leaving motive out for a moment, in the case 
of the way the pulling and withholding of these clearances was 
done, is that clearly inconsistent with policy, procedures, 
tradition, and the fair treatment of an employee?
    Mr. Horowitz. Actually, let me just--it actually was 
somewhat any ways consistent with the policies, practices, and 
procedures, which is why I think there are several policy 
issues that are important to talk about in terms of reforms. I 
know the submissions here have raised some of them.
    Mr. Issa. So, you are an attorney in addition to other 
things. The law is not always about fairness.
    Mr. Horowitz. Unfortunately, that's true.
    Mr. Issa. Would you characterize that this is an example 
where even if marginally supported by law and regulation it is 
by no means a fair way to treat somebody?
    Mr. Horowitz. As I've said, it was consistent with policy 
to allow someone like Mr. Allen to be out of his job on unpaid 
leave for more than two years and try and fight that process.
    Mr. Issa. So, not only does Congress need to find a way to 
prevent these--unfairness, but we also suffer from the fact 
that this can be done for no reason or for an unknown reason. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. I think that is some of the 
key policy issues that are here before all of you, which is Mr. 
Allen had an ability to challenge this, as limited as it was, 
because he was alleging a whistleblower retaliation. He 
wouldn't have that same opportunity, but for the fact he was 
alleging retaliation for whistleblowing.
    Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Issa, can I add to that?
    Mr. Issa. Yes, please.
    Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Horowitz is talking about the procedures 
of protecting, so going through and appealing. It's important 
to remember that substantively this whole process started 
because Mr. Allen made a protected disclosure. Several of the 
things in Mr. Horowitz'--
    Mr. Issa. I want to get to that. Going back to 
whistleblower retaliation, under the intent of our 
whistleblower statute we intend to protect a whistleblower 
normally from all retaliation including any loss of pay. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
    Mr. Issa. So, the agency made what would have been a 
finding of whistleblower on the front end, notwithstanding--
whistleblowers don't have to be right; they just have to be 
whistleblowers. Had they made the finding it was clear, then he 
would not have lost a day's pay because they would have treated 
his--the pay in some way as a whistleblower.
    Mr. Horowitz. Right. As long as they thought he had a 
reasonable belief in what he said, they should not have taken a 
personnel action against him.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, in a little bit of a circular item here--
and again, I am staying away from motive for a moment, 
certainly, the tools were available to not deny him one day of 
pay. Ultimately, the resolution is some day in the future, not 
yet, not after four months, he will get made whole in theory in 
pay, but in fact it never had to be that way and the judgment 
used in this case is suspect.
    Mr. Horowitz. Yes, and that is exactly why, Congressman, we 
put out the management alert we did to point out the fact that 
you don't need to put someone on unpaid leave while you review 
an allegation against the person. You can find other 
opportunities for them, other positions they can continue to 
work in, even if you think they shouldn't have this clearance.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thanks for making that clear.
    We now go to Congresswoman Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all the witnesses. So, once again MAGA 
Republicans are here talking about something that quite frankly 
seems to just be made up, and I think I want to just stick to 
talking to, Mr. Kirschner, because I know you have already 
talked some about Project 2025. We have talked about several 
aspects of it, but one thing that has caught my eye, of course, 
is that Project 2025 is filled with antiimmigrant proposals 
that will continue to perpetuate cycles of racist policies, 
unnecessary inhumane detentions of human beings, ineffective, 
and dangerous border policies.
    The project calls to dismantle asylum to militarize our 
border; that is at page 555, and also to pursue the 
promulgation of every rule related to immigration that was 
issued during the Trump Administration; that is at page 568, 
and to challenge any checks and balances against the 
President's authority over immigration, page 568. So, once 
again he want complete authority, and he being Donald Trump.
    The project's mandate for leadership takes particular aim 
at sanctuary cities. One of the things about sanctuary cities 
that is always mentioned is that victims of crime that happen 
to be immigrants feel comfortable in being able to complain, or 
if they are witnesses to a crime.
    So, Mr. Kirschner, you have served as a prosecutor for 30 
years. I have been a lawyer and a judge. We understand the 
importance of law and order and holding violent criminals 
accountable. So, what would be the dangers if this mandate were 
to go into effect and they would attempt to end sanctuary 
cities? The bigger question is there is no definition of 
sanctuary cities. It is all a label that has been used for 
years. What would this do to the crime rate in some of our 
cities?
    Mr. Kirschner. I think it could potentially increase it. If 
you deter people from reporting that they have been victims of 
violent crime for fear of what will happen to them if they 
report that victimization, all you're doing is creating an 
enormous class of folk who are going to continue to be 
victimized. That can grow. Maybe they will then commit crimes 
themselves because the whole thing begins to operate outside 
the rule of law. So, those approaches present real challenges 
and could increase crime when it sounds like it's designed to 
decrease crime.
    Ms. Garcia. So, instead of getting rid of gangs they are 
probably creating the formation of more gangs?
    Mr. Kirschner. It could. I see also in Project 2025 on page 
555, that it recommends that they use active duty military 
personnel to enforce civilian law, which I remember being 
taught in Army law school years ago that's a violation of the 
Posse Comitatus Act. So, none of this seems to be all that well 
thought out.
    Ms. Garcia. Right. Then, another priority in the mandate's 
proposal for the Department of Justice--my colleagues, 
especially Representative Lynch, have already alluded to this. 
The mandate reads--and I will read it again because it is worth 
repeating. It is at page 569.

        The next conservative administrative must make every effort to 
        obtain the resources to support a vast expansion of the number 
        of appointees in every office and component across the 
        Department especially in the Civil Rights Division, the FBI, 
        and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

    So, just a complete dismantling of those offices. So, in 
essence this proposes to strip the Department, including the 
immigration enforcement, of career civil servants who of course 
would leave probably. If they are concerned about Mr. Allen not 
having two years of pay, which of course I agree it is 
concerning--but imagine people who are loyal not to the rule of 
law, not loyal to the Constitution, have no guidelines because 
it has all been dismantled, they could probably--anyone that 
appears before them, they could probably suspend all of them 
for two years and give them no pay because there would be no 
rules. Wouldn't you agree?
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes, if you have supervisors who are not 
making decisions based on the rule of law, the facts and the 
evidence, but political considerations--my supervisors could 
tell me investigate this crime; don't investigate that crime. 
If that determination is not based exclusively on the facts, 
the law, the victim, and the protection of the community, we're 
going to get in real trouble.
    Ms. Garcia. So, a case like Mr. Allen's could be multiplied 
into thousands if there are no rules and no regulation. There 
wouldn't be an Inspector General to review anything.
    Mr. Kirschner. It could be. Let me go on record of saying I 
support whistleblowers--
    Ms. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Mr. Kirschner. --and retaliation against them needs to be 
stamped out. So, I just--
    Ms. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Mr. Kirschner. We have this thing called an adoptive 
admission. So, when somebody says I believe or don't believe 
something, I just feel compelled to put on the record what I 
actually believe.
    Ms. Garcia. Right. Well, thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the Chair.
    Inspector General Horowitz, over the past three years I 
have questioned FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Merrick 
Garland about the Federal assets such as confidential human 
sources that were present on January 6th at the Capitol and 
they have continuously stonewalled me. We have got no answers 
whatsoever about this from them.
    Now, you announced that you were going to a review of the 
DOJ response in preparation, mainly preparation I think for 
January 6th. When did you start that review? When did you 
announce that review?
    Mr. Horowitz. We announced it in 2021, but we ended up 
pausing it because of the ongoing criminal cases, consistent 
with how we perform our work. We reinitiated it last year, and 
I am in the process of reviewing a draft of the report.
    Mr. Massie. So, 3\1/2\ years ago it was announced that you 
would be doing this review, and we still don't have the review, 
do we?
    Mr. Horowitz. No. As I said, the reason is we paused the 
review because of the ongoing criminal work that would--
consistent with our practice, we don't interfere with ongoing 
criminal investigations--
    Mr. Massie. Now that you have restarted it, do you have 
evidence of the number of confidential human sources that were 
operating on the Capitol grounds on January 6th?
    Mr. Horowitz. Our report will include the information in 
that regard.
    Mr. Massie. Can you tell us today how many there were? Were 
there more than 100?
    Mr. Horowitz. I am not in a position to say that, both 
because it is draft form and we have not gone through the 
classification reviews, and so I need to be careful on what I 
say.
    Mr. Massie. So, we are four years in. The reason to do 
these reports is so we don't make the mistakes, if there were 
any mistakes, not to make the same mistakes again. We are just 
weeks away from an inauguration. We are four years, almost four 
years into this report. When is it going to be released?
    Mr. Horowitz. It is certainly my hope and expectation, 
although I don't control this entirely because it has to go 
through a classification review, but certainly in the next 
couple of months is my estimate.
    Mr. Massie. Do you think there is any consideration for the 
election about the release of this report? Would you delay it 
in to not release it right before the election?
    Mr. Horowitz. At this point, given the process that has to 
play out in terms of classification review and all that, I am 
not making--I don(t have to make any judgment about that. We 
are still--that is the last to go on. Just to give you a sense 
of when I did the FISA--
    Mr. Massie. You are saying it is not even going to be done 
before the election.
    Mr. Horowitz. It doesn't--I doubt it would be done in time 
for the election.
    Mr. Massie. Is it going to be done before the inauguration?
    Mr. Horowitz. That is certainly my hope and my plan.
    Mr. Massie. It is your hope. We are four years into it and 
what we do know is, you are going to expose that there were 
confidential human sources at the Capitol. Can you tell us 
today how many went into the Capitol?
    Mr. Horowitz. I will have that information in the report. I 
am not able to speak to information in there, both because it 
is in draft and we get a response from the Department and the 
FBI, but also because I don't know yet what is classified and 
not classified.
    Mr. Massie. So, if they broke the law, if they went into 
the Capitol, which we pretty much know there were confidential 
human sources who went into the Capitol and right there 
alongside of everybody else, wouldn't they need to follow DOJ 
CHS protocols? Do you know if those were followed?
    Mr. Horowitz. They should follow CHS protocols. Again, we 
will include that information in the report.
    Mr. Massie. Do you know how many were reimbursed for 
travel?
    Mr. Horowitz. As I sit here, I don't recall the numbers.
    Mr. Massie. You don't recall or you won't tell us?
    Mr. Horowitz. Well, and if I did know it, I wouldn't be in 
a position to tell you because we still have to go through--
    Mr. Massie. We are four years into this. You are supposed 
to be the organization that goes and gets these answers when 
the FBI and the DOJ stonewall Congress. I feel like we are four 
years into this, we are not even going to get this information, 
you are telling us now, before the election, and maybe not even 
before the next inauguration. How would we make any 
corrections, or without that information?
    I want to move on to something else. We have got an FBI's 
failed investigation of the January 6th pipe bomb. Are you 
looking into that at all?
    Mr. Horowitz. We have had discussion Congressman, about it. 
We have followed up, and I can speak to you about that.
    Mr. Massie. They keep saying it is ongoing investigation, 
but they have got no leads and no suspects. They have lost 
information, they have lost evidence or they can't find 
evidence.
    The Secret Service deleted all its texts on January 6th. 
Steve D'Antuono, the guy in charge of Washington, DC, Field 
Office says that the cell phone data that could have been used 
to find the bomber was corrupted.
    Now, we just found out, I found out from another Inspector 
General, and I want to submit this for the record--
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Massie. Yes, I asked him do you have the footage, the 
video footage, does the FBI have the video footage of the DNC 
on January 6th. He tells me when he asked the FBI for the video 
footage, they don't even have video footage of the DNC that we 
know was created on January. It is almost as if they don't want 
to know.
    Can you rule out that there were any confidential human 
sources involved in the whole pipe bomb thing on January 6th?
    Mr. Horowitz. I would have to go back, Congressman, and 
refresh myself on what we have, information we have gathered to 
date on that. I don't know, as I sit here. I don't recall.
    Mr. Massie. OK, that would be a huge revelation--
    Mr. Horowitz. I am happy to come--
    Mr. Massie. I think we should get that and get it public 
before the election. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. I am just struck 
by the irony, the fact that the very email that they went after 
Marcus Allen, Mr. Allen, about was on this subject. We are not 
going to get an answer to it until after the election, 
potentially after the inauguration. I find the irony 
astounding.
    It is not Mr. Horowitz's fault, it is the folks at the 
Justice Department who are taking their time with this report. 
I appreciate the gentleman's question.
    Now, yield the gentleman from New York, or California? 
California. New York, excuse me. I will do whatever Ms. 
Plaskett says. OK, New York.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Here we are again for another hearing about the same topic. 
I want to say I appreciate the concerns about how the FBI 
addresses and investigates whistleblowers or retaliates against 
whistleblowers. We have had a number of hearings on this in 
this Committee.
    Mr. Horowitz, I am glad you are looking into it. That is 
your job, and that is what you should do.
    Let's be real. This is the weaponization of the Federal 
Government Subcommittee. Whistleblower retaliation is peanuts 
compared to a future President using the power of his office to 
imprison his political adversaries simply because they oppose 
him. That is the ultimate weaponization of the Federal 
Government.
    We don't have to question whether or not Donald Trump will 
do this in the future because we know how this story plays out. 
We have seen it, and he has done it in the past.
    I want to introduce an article from last Sunday's The New 
York Times entitled, ``As President, Trump Demanded 
Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them. He has threatened to 
target his perceived enemies if elected again. A look at his 
time in the White House shows how readily he could do so.''
    Let's just go through some of the things that Donald Trump 
did when he was President the first time. James Comey testified 
that Trump asked him for a pledge of loyalty and then requested 
that Comey drop the investigation of former National Security 
Advisor Michael Flynn. Comey refused; Trump fired him.
    Trump also fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe because 
he oversaw an investigation that Donald Trump didn't like, just 
days before McCabe would have earned his full retirement 
pension. Trump then demanded that the IRS investigate Comey and 
McCabe, among others.
    Well, that is not all. At Trump's direction, the Justice 
Department dropped its case against former National Security 
Advisor Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
    Mr. Kirschner, in your 30 years of experience, are you 
aware of any other situation where the Department of Justice 
withdrew a case after someone, a defendant, had admitted to the 
conduct under oath in court?
    Mr. Kirschner. I am not.
    Mr. Goldman. Let's move on. Donald Trump pressured overtly 
the DOJ to reverse its sentencing recommendation for Roger 
Stone. After Stone threatened to cooperate against Donald 
Trump, Trump granted him clemency. John Durham wasted millions 
of dollars on a baseless and fruitless investigation into the 
origins of the Russia investigation because Donald Trump 
demanded it.
    It got so bad that Mr. Durham's No. 2 resigned in protest 
to Durham's plan, pressure by Bill Barr and Donald Trump to 
publish an interim report on the investigation shortly before 
the 2020 election in gross violation of DOJ policies.
    That is not all. Trump tried to install Jeffery Clark as 
Attorney General because he acknowledged to the President that 
he would do his bidding and fraudulently try to help him 
overturn the election.
    This is the one that really, really gets to the nub of 
this. Mr. Leavitt, we are talking about First Amendment, 
infringement on First Amendment rights that you are alleging 
has happened to these FBI agents. You would agree, would you 
not, that writing a book is protected speech under the First 
Amendment?
    Mr. Leavitt. Sure.
    Mr. Goldman. So, let me just give you a hypothetical 
scenario. Somebody pleads guilty to a crime, he is sentenced 
and designated to serve his sentence at home. He is asked by 
the Department of Justice to sign an agreement saying that he 
would not write a book. He refuses to do that.
    As a result of his refusal, the Department of Justice 
throws him back into jail in solitary confinement. Is that in 
your mind the weaponization of the Department of Justice to 
infringe on First Amendment rights?
    Mr. Leavitt. I am not a First Amendment lawyer, Mr. 
Goldman.
    Mr. Kirschner. Well, you said this is all about a First 
Amendment infringement.
    Mr. Leavitt. Well, with reference--
    Mr. Kirschner. Why are you testifying about that if you are 
not an expert? The answer, because my time is running out--
    Mr. Leavitt. Because Federal employees have the right to 
talk about--
    Mr. Kirschner. Excuse me, the answer, because my time is 
running out, is that this actually happened by Donald Trump to 
Michael Cohen. A judge intervened immediately, reversed the 
decision because it is a gross violation of the First 
Amendment. It is a gross abuse of the power of the Department 
of Justice. Mr. Cohen was let out.
    This is who now has complete immunity to do this as much as 
he wants without the guardrails of Don McGahn or John Kelly to 
stop him from doing it. This is going to be the danger of the 
weaponization of the Federal Government.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
South Carolina is recognized.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Horowitz, your office published an Advisory Memo, 24-
067, entitled ``The Justice Department's Compliance with 
Whistleblower Protections for Employees with Security 
Clearance.''
    I noted how you found that the DOJ was not in compliance 
with whistleblower protections for employees with a clearance. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
    Mr. Fry. What policies exactly did the DOJ fail to follow?
    Mr. Horowitz. So, the law requires for suspension and 
revocations of security clearance that the Department have an 
appeal process allowing after one year of suspension to come to 
the Inspector General and appeal that process. That was not in 
place at the time.
    Mr. Fry. Does it concern you that the DOJ, that certain DOJ 
components like the FBI indefinitely suspend employees without 
pay for the duration of a security investigation and review 
process?
    Mr. Horowitz. It does, which is one of the issues we also 
raised in that management memo.
    Mr. Fry. What is the length, the average length of time for 
one of those investigations?
    Mr. Horowitz. So, we found in the report, for the 106 
employees that we looked at over a five-year period who had 
been suspended for more than six months, that the average was 
527 days. So about 17\1/2\ months.
    Mr. Fry. So, about a 1\1/2\ years, right?
    Mr. Horowitz. For 1\1/2\ years.
    Mr. Fry. So, in your work, have you seen similar delays or 
similar lengths of time in other agencies?
    Mr. Horowitz. We have within the Department in other 
components, law enforcement components.
    Mr. Fry. What concerns me too, at least with the pay issue, 
the DOJ's and the FBI's current policy forces employees to 
remain in an indefinite State of limbo without pay, right.
    Mr. Horowitz. That is exactly right, and that is the 
concern, Congressman, that goes actually beyond whistleblowers. 
Mr. Allen ultimately was able to resolve, get a settlement 
because he was a whistleblower alleging retaliation. That same 
issue applies to people who don't have a whistleblower claim 
but have nonetheless had their security clearance pulled.
    Mr. Fry. I just think it is remarkable to me just to hear 
Mr. Allen's testimony earlier about what he and his family went 
through, pulling out retirement and life savings, things like 
that just to stay afloat. Fortunately for him, he was able to 
settle. He might be the exception and not the rule, is that 
fair to say?
    Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. Many people we have seen 
have resigned or retired rather than wait two-plus years.
    Mr. Leavitt. Can I add one clarification on the settlement? 
It was not because of his whistleblower claim, or the 
settlement is related to that, but the restoration of his 
security clearance was because of just an appeal of the 
revocation. So, that was not tied to the whistleblower claim or 
to the settlement for the back pay.
    The FBI explicitly said we are not giving you back this 
clearance just because there is some settlement. They made an 
independent security determination, and they determined he was 
entitled to it.
    Mr. Fry. Furthermore, the memo found that DOJ policy 
doesn't hold that the leave requirement, to the extent 
practical, permits an individual to retain their employment 
status while their security clearance is in review. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
    Mr. Fry. Does the DOJ's failure to follow this policy 
concern you?
    Mr. Horowitz. It does, which is what led us to issue the 
management alert. The Department did respond and has since 
changed its policies so that there is that one-year appeal.
    The other thing that they have done, which is not required 
currently, but is certainly something that I think Congress 
should consider, is requiring components, the Department law 
enforcement components, in particular, to consider whether 
there are paid jobs people can be in without the clearances, 
even if a clearance suspension is warranted.
    So, that you don't have this situation where someone gets 
put out on unpaid leave, or paid leave not working either. 
Which has been another problem, by the way, at the Department 
over the years, is putting people on paid leave for extended 
periods of time so they are getting a paycheck without having 
to work.
    Mr. Fry. Based on your office's findings, do you think that 
the senior leadership within the DOJ or the FBI were aware that 
their policies did not follow Federal legal standards?
    Mr. Horowitz. I actually, my sense is they were not aware. 
Because when we started this process and went to them, they did 
not seem to know about this issue. Weren't aware that their 
policy fell short on that issue, I should say.
    Mr. Fry. Your office made four recommendations to the DOJ 
to address the concerns cited in your memo:

    (1)  What were those for the record?
    (2)  To your knowledge, what steps has the DOJ taken to 
implement those recommendations?

    Mr. Horowitz. So, the four recommendations were:

    (1)  To make sure there was this one-year appeal process.
    (2)  To notify employees of their right to this process, 
because obviously you can have a process, but you shouldn't 
have to have an employee rummage through a lot of policies to 
find it.
    (3)  When there is a suspension, look to see if there are 
positions they can go into where they can continue to maintain 
their position while performing work, even without the 
suspension if that is the plan.
    (4)  Put in place a review to make sure that these being 
done timely.

    So, because you don't want a situation either where if they 
can find another job with a security clearance suspension hold, 
that they somehow indefinitely stay in that other job.
    You want them to have that resolved. If they shouldn't be 
in the job, they should leave, right. If it was an unfair 
suspension, they should be put back to their old job.
    Mr. Fry. Have they taken those recommendations?
    Mr. Horowitz. They have. Very importantly, is the 
requirement that they report regularly to the Department 
leadership as to why that hasn't occurred in a timely way.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
California is recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the witnesses, 
thank you for your testimony.
    I am going to take this in a slightly different direction. 
Most of the focus has been on the Department of Justice, as is 
appropriate. Most of this is history. My concern is tomorrow. 
My concern is what might be in our future.
    Project 2025 is a roadmap that the Republican 
Administration may use should Trump win the election. In 
Project 2025, there are many things to be concerned about, most 
of which happen to do with the weaponization of the government, 
the whole of government, to carry out an agenda.
    I want to focus on one part of Project 2025, which really 
hasn't been discussed much, but really should be paid attention 
to. That is the redesign of our national security apparatus, 
putting all senior military officers and career intelligence 
officers through a loyalty test and what that might mean for 
our Nation should that come to pass.
    Now, we can debate whether it would come to pass or not. 
The election will have something to do with that, but also the 
willingness or the unwillingness of the new administration to 
undertake that.
    What would a loyalty test mean for the military? It 
wouldn't be their ability to conduct the necessary programs for 
our national defense, but rather their loyalty to the President 
and the President's agenda, which may or may not have anything 
to do with national security.
    We have some history here that might be useful. For 
example, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would not carry 
out President Trump's political agenda. Certainly, willing to 
carry out the military national security agenda, but not the 
military agenda. That earned Chief of Staff General Mark Milley 
the opportunity for the President to call for his execution.
    Now, if Project 2025 is the roadmap for the Trump 
Administration, and the Trump Administration demands a loyalty 
test for our senior military generals, colonels, and career 
intelligence officers, what does that mean for the Nation? 
Posse Comitatus is often used, but I believe this Committee has 
from time to time taken a look at the emergency powers of the 
President, which basically can waive nearly every law.
    So, we may wind up, given Project 2025 and the loyalty 
tests that seem to be embedded in it, with a military that is 
capable of involvement in domestic affairs and an intelligence 
community that is supposed to be looking outside of this Nation 
involved domestically.
    So, the combination of the current very long list of 
emergency powers that the President has, together with a loyal 
military hierarchy and a loyal career intelligence community, 
that is, loyal to the President, not necessarily loyal to the 
Constitution or to the history of our democracy. What could it 
mean to our Nation?
    A military that is used domestically for political 
purposes. An intelligence community that is looking inward. 
Project 2025 presents a very serious challenge.
    Five seconds. I would like all of you to ponder what this 
would mean. Is it a problem, Mr. Kirschner?
    Mr. Bishop. The gentleman's--
    Mr. Kirschner. It is. What I am reminded of, 
Representative, is after I graduated law school and I was sent 
to Army law school, to JAG school on the campus of the 
University of Virginia, one thing that was drilled into our 
heads is you must obey lawful orders. Equally important, I 
would say more important, you must disobey unlawful orders.
    Project 2025 would wipe out that second command, which is 
more important than the first command. The danger can't be 
overstated.
    Mr. Garamendi. I appreciate the forbearance of the Chair 
for that 25 seconds.
    Mr. Bishop. The gentleman's time has--the gentleman yields 
back, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Davidson.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the Chair.
    It is disappointing that we need this hearing. Mr. Allen, I 
want to apologize for what has happened to you. Our country 
should treat you better.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you for the apology.
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you for your long career of service to 
our country. I just wanted to ask, your experience spans a 
couple decades, and so over your time in service to our 
country, just confined to the FBI, what kind of changes?
    The perception back home is the rank-and-file people at the 
FBI are people that we want to be there that we want to 
support. Frankly, there is not a lot of trust in the current 
leadership system.
    When you ask questions, a lot of my constituents had the 
exact same questions and others did. So, thank you for taking 
the courage to just ask an honest question. The way that this 
was treated is shameful. We are here today in part because of 
that.
    Frankly, Mr. Horowitz is continuing a three- or four-year-
long hopefully imminent report that answers the exact same 
question. So, how have you seen the FBI change, as someone who 
moved up through the ranks?
    Mr. Allen. I would say that unfortunately in my experience 
with the culture at the FBI, it is very easy for leaders there 
to kind of impose their wills on their subordinates. It is a 
culture where there are a lot of careerists and blue flamers 
who will do what they need to climb up the charts and the 
ladders.
    If that includes burning other agents or subordinate 
employees to get to where they want to get in the organization, 
whether that is for power or money concerns, that is something 
I have observed in the culture of the FBI since I started there 
in 2008 as a contractor. Worked for a couple years. Then, I got 
on officially with the Charlotte Field Office in late 2015.
    So, I would like to say that this is a, from my personal 
experience, sea change, but from what I have seen, there have 
always been vain careerists within the organization who will 
destroy people to climb the charts.
    Mr. Davidson. Safe to say we are not always promoting the 
best and brightest.
    Mr. Allen. I would concur with that statement.
    Mr. Davidson. How do we need to change the culture to get 
it back on track?
    Mr. Allen. I think there needs to be more accountability, 
and there needs to be a high focus on moral and ethical 
behavior within the organization.
    Outside checks and balances via policy change where the 
Bureau isn't allowed to simply just review their own conduct, 
to truly have an external watchdog force that can actually 
cause punitive change and enact measures in the organization. I 
think that is a big part of it. That is what I would advocate 
for.
    I know a lot of folks that join the FBI, they get into it, 
and it is not quite what they expected once they get on the 
inside. So, there is a lot of cultural change just from the 
historical culture of the place that has to change.
    I would like to tell you that I am shocked that this is 
where the FBI has come today, but frankly, I am not shocked at 
all that this kind of lawless conduct could have occurred 
within the walls of the organization.
    Mr. Davidson. Yes, sad, but I have heard it from many other 
people, and frankly, you felt the blunt end of it. Again, 
hopefully we can make this right swiftly and you serve out a 
good career there. Thank you for your service.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you.
    Mr. Davidson. Mr. Horowitz, in another way, you have done 
things that my constituents appreciate. You have provided 
oversight and accountability. The oversight and accountability 
function of Congress seems to work. The public finds out about 
all kinds of things.
    They are just so frustrated because at the end of the day, 
Congress just shuts up and cuts the check. We don't provide 
reform, we don't provide accountability. Instead, you see 
people like Mr. Veltri promoted, somewhat validating Mr. 
Allen's observations. Trusted, as it turns out, with critical 
investigations.
    We saw the FBI, I hope there is an investigation underway 
on the events in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13th. Is there 
an active Inspector General overview of that?
    Mr. Horowitz. I actually don't have jurisdiction over that. 
My understanding is the DHS Inspector General--
    Mr. Davidson. Inspector General Cuffari does. As CIGIE, the 
Integrity Committee, you formerly directed that they have tried 
to target people, even as inspector generals. Did you feel 
sometimes limited or coerced because of how CIGIE has changed 
their behavior over the years?
    Mr. Horowitz. Yes, let me just say I was the Chair of 
CIGIE, not the Chair of the Integrity Committee. By law, that 
distinction, Congress has separated those two. I did, but the 
integrity is part of CIGIE.
    Look, I have dealt with issues at the Integrity Committee. 
I think there are improvements that are certainly needed, and 
can be made in both internally and through legislative action 
that would improve the process. I do think, and I have worked 
with folks there, that they have tried to exercise their 
responsibilities to the Chair of the--as Members of the 
Integrity Committee as best they could.
    Mr. Davidson. Well, one thing we absolutely have to do is 
we have to change the way it is funded. Right now, they are 
harvesting cash from other agencies, including extra money. So, 
Congress needs to take action, in particular with funding.
    My time has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bishop. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Crockett, for five minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    I will pick up maybe a little bit where my colleague just 
left off. The question was about Butler, Pennsylvania.
    I am curious to know if any of you are aware as to whether 
or not the FBI is involved at all in determining what is going 
on in Springfield, Ohio. Because as far as I am concerned, 
there is domestic terrorism afoot, and it is at the word of the 
Republican nominee and his running mate.
    So, do we know if anyone is checking into that on the 
Federal level? I am just curious. Just say yes or no, anybody.
    Mr. Horowitz. I don't know, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Crockett. OK, perfect. Either way, I want to move on, 
and I want to talk about, Mr. Kirschner, I am just curious, if 
you were to define what weaponization of the Federal Government 
looks like just in a quick, short definition, what would it be?
    Mr. Kirschner. Using the Department of Justice to reward 
your friends and your criminal associates by delivering pardons 
after they have been convicted by juries, or before their case 
was even concluded, or before their case was even charged.
    Conversely, using the Department of Justice to punish your 
perceived enemies, order investigations and prosecutions even 
if they are not warranted by evidence.
    I am sorry, that was not brief.
    Ms. Crockett. That's OK. It was accurate. Because that's 
how I see weaponization as well and it's something that we saw 
a lot out of Trump, specifically, because all his friends were 
going to prison and he's probably got more friends that are 
headed to prison soon. If we are lucky, he will find him a 
cellmate soon as well.
    Nevertheless, as we talk about weaponization, because this 
whole Committee feels as if it's projection, I want to go to 
something that is pretty interesting, but I'm going to start 
with Mr. Allen.
    I wasn't on this Committee the first time you were here. 
So, this is the first time we're interacting. I am caught up-
to-speed, and I have a simple question for you, yes or no. Do 
you believe that career employees like yourself should have 
your job taken away, even if you've done your job well and 
followed agency rules? Do you think it's right to be fired just 
because you have political disagreements with those above you?
    Mr. Allen. No, it's not right to persecute anyone for their 
political or religious beliefs, especially in an organization 
where there's supposed to be the free flow of ideas.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. I appreciate your answer and your 
honesty, and I absolutely agree with you.
    It is interesting, though, because that's exactly what 
Trump and my Republican colleagues would do if they won the 
election. It's spelled out in Project 2025. Trump would strip 
due process rights of available to career civil servants and 
remove, suspend, or reduce their pay in an all-out effort to 
oust agency employees for partisan reasons, rather than because 
of issues with merit or performance.
    Before you say Trump and Project 2025 aren't affiliated, 
I'd ask unanimous consent to submit into the record Trump's 
campaign page where he claims,

        On day one, I'd reissue a 2020 Executive Order restoring the 
        President's authority to fire rogue bureaucrats and I will 
        wield that power very aggressively.

    The only reason democracy is standing strong today is 
because we had public servants who pledged loyalty to the 
Constitution and rule of law and not to Donald Trump.
    Mr. Kirschner, your testimony today demonstrates you're 
familiar with Project 2025. Is that a fair statement?
    Mr. Kirschner. Particularly, as it pertains to the 
Department of Justice.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. You are aware, or maybe you're not--we'll 
see--on page 547, that Project 2025 states its goal of 
implementing a top-to-bottom overhaul of DOJ that, quote, 
``must include the FBI,'' because anything less would, quote, 
``guarantee the failure of the conservative administration's 
agenda.'' Are you aware--
    Mr. Kirschner. That does not make a lot of sense to me.
    Ms. Crockett. OK, but that's in Project 2025?
    Mr. Kirschner. It is, it is on--
    Ms. Crockett. OK.
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Crockett. All right. Just wanted to clarify that.
    Also, this agenda includes, for example, enforcing Federal 
criminal laws against providers and distributors of abortion 
medication, as well as rescinding policies that hold that sex 
discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation, transgender identity, among other things. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes, Representative, on page 562, they talk 
about aggressively going after, prosecuting, quote, ``providers 
and distributors of abortion pills that use the mail.'' So, 
folks who are mailing abortion pills to women who need it. That 
is really not what is endangering our country or inspiring 
violent crime.
    Ms. Crockett. I absolutely agree.
    This week, The New York Times reported multiple instances 
of Trump trying to weaponize the DOJ to retaliate against his 
political enemies, finding that, quote,

        Mr. Trump told Mr. McGahn that he wanted to order Mr. Sessions, 
        the Attorney General, to prosecute Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, 
        and if Mr. Sessions refused, he would take matters into his own 
        hands.

I know my time is running out. So, I just have to ask, Mr. 
Chair, given you've convened this hearing--theoretically, it's 
you--given that you've convened this hearing on weaponizing 
Federal agencies, will you commit to publicly condemning Trump 
for attempting to weaponize the government and condemn Project 
2025 for its efforts to do the same?
    Mr. Bishop. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    I recognize myself for five minutes.
    Mr. Allen, I'm going to give you a little notice. You've 
written some notes. As far as I'm concerned, you're the person 
I'm most interested in hearing from.
    I'm from Charlotte. I know people--I've been to the 
Charlotte field office. I know some people there. I was 
extraordinarily impressed by you and the other whistleblowers 
when you previously appeared before this Subcommittee. I'm 
impressed by you again. I haven't been able to be here the 
whole time.
    I'm going to yield you some time, just if you cared, if you 
have things that you wish to say, in just a moment.
    The first thing I'm going to say before I do that, and 
then, I'm going to give Mr. Jordan the rest of my time, is I'm 
just overwhelmingly troubled by the fact that no one seems to 
be able to do much about what has happened to you.
    You've got the Inspector General, a very respectable 
person. You've done a lot of things that have been historic. 
You issue a management alert. To me, it sounds ridiculous to 
say you don't think these guys at the FBI, the senior managers, 
understand that they shouldn't retaliate against somebody by 
putting him under extreme personal hardship, while they engage 
in a completely baseless persecution over their security 
clearance, and they leave them in limbo for 27 months, and to 
this moment, haven't paid what I understand to be the 
consideration under the, under the settlement that has been 
reached. That is astonishing.
    If that's not astonishing enough, that all you can do is 
issue an alert--Congress does absolutely nothing, in the 
majority party, not one thing to impose on the Department of 
Justice or the FBI an appropriate sanction for what they've 
done.
    We have a hearing about it and everybody in the Minority 
party, there's some Trump--they're fearing what Donald Trump 
would do in the next administration, while they sit here, and 
they look at the guy who's been persecuted by the FBI. 
Everybody in the room understands it.
    Mr. Allen, do you have comments you wish to make? I will 
give you about a minute, a minute and half, and then, I want to 
turn the rest of my time to Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. I would just say that I've considered 
the hearing today my last act of service as a public servant 
for the United States of America. I'll give you my professional 
opinion.
    I was an intel professional for our country for many years 
and I would give recommendations, and I would also look at 
indications and warnings. So, I would offer this to the 
American people as my warning to them. So, this is a warning.
    To the American people, I say, I personally have no 
confidence that the FBI will rein-in its own conduct. I have 
been persecuted, along with Garret, Steve, and Kyle, and 
countless other whistleblowers. It is my opinion that the 
Bureau used reprisal and fear to control the workforce. It has 
been a seemingly effective tactic.
    I personally believe that there are no current effective 
checks and balances against them conducting lawless action with 
any type of correction in a legitimate timeframe. I welcome the 
work of the IG, but I think any type of lawless action, there 
is no legitimate timeframe to rein them back in, their ability 
to overclassify information to allow them to stonewall forever.
    To the American people, you have a duty as a citizen to 
vote, and I strong urge you to do so. It's how you participate 
in the American experience. I know people have doubts about 
election integrity, but you must vote. It is your claim. State 
your claim and don't forfeit it willingly. Have your voice 
heard.
    My other recommendations are in the natural order. First, 
vote. The second is the Second Amendment. arm yourself, and 
know how to defend yourself. Make three to four friends in your 
neighborhood and promise to come to each other's mutual aid in 
times of harm, hardship.
    During the Great Depression, people stocked up a pantry. 
So, I think that's a good practice, especially in our economic 
times, and make sure you have three to four months of food.
    As a person of faith, I'd say pray the rosary. Go to the 
First Friday Devotions. That's for everybody, all my brothers 
and sisters of all faiths, and I know I'm Catholic. Read the 
gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and live it every 
day.
    That's all I have to say. Thank you for the time.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Allen, the fact that there are servants 
like you who have borne up under persecution that a lot of 
political leaders in this country do not care about is the 
thing that heartens the American people. I'm confident the 
American people will resolve the situation, no matter how bad, 
how weak Washington is in response.
    Mr. Jordan, I'm sorry I didn't reserve much time for you, 
but I yield to you.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Allen, for those well-said 
words.
    Mr. Horowitz, did you ever request permission from the 
Deputy Attorney General to investigate attorney misconduct in 
Special Counsel Davis Weiss' office?
    Mr. Horowitz. I have not at this point asked for that 
authority. As we've engaged on this issue in the past, it's, 
first, not clear whether we have that authority. I'd have to 
have that discussion.
    Second, while the prosecution was ongoing, it was my view, 
consistent with our policy and practice, to let that 
prosecution play out, and then--
    Chair Jordan. Do you have concerns?
    Mr. Horowitz. I think there have been a number of 
legitimate concerns raised, yes, Congressman.
    Chair Jordan. My time has expired.
    Mr. Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. 
Wasser-man Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, Donald Trump's Project 2025 is a direct attack 
on women's reproductive freedom and healthcare. One of its most 
effective assaults on our rights comes from what's called to 
criminally punish healthcare providers who distribute FDA-
approved abortion medication by mail. This would effectively 
end access to a safe, legal procedure that two-thirds of 
American women who seek an abortion rely on.
    How would Trump's Project 2025 do that, Mr. Chair? By 
weaponizing our Federal Government against women and doctors. 
The most corrosive attack would direct the Justice Department 
to ban the mailing of abortion pills by enforcing an obscure 
1873 obscenity law called the Comstock Act. You heard that 
right, a 150-year-old obscenity law.
    Mr. Kirschner, could reviving this 19th century statute and 
weaponizing DOJ to enforce it block a clinician from sending 
abortion pills to patients?
    Mr. Kirschner. It could.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes or no, could it stop the 
manufacturers from even delivering mifepristone pills to 
clinicians and pharmacies?
    Mr. Kirschner. It seems it could.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Trump's Project 2025 directs the 
Justice Department to start using its surveillance powers to 
monitor these pill-makers and goes so far as to name them in 
their Blueprint.
    Mr. Kirschner, could that kind of shadowing result in 
medicine companies being targeted and harassed?
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Could weaponizing the Justice 
Department to enforce this Civil War era law, in fact, create a 
de facto nationwide ban on mifepristone?
    Mr. Kirschner. It could.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This isn't about politics; this 
about control. It's about denying women the ability to make 
decisions about our own bodies. It's about putting Donald Trump 
and JD Vance right in the exam rooms of doctors and millions of 
women. It's about punishing and even jailing doctors who 
provide compassionate care or loved ones who help you obtain 
the healthcare that you seek.
    Mr. Kirschner, I want to ask you about another way Trump's 
Project 2025 would weaponize our government against millions of 
women and doctors. The medicine we're talking about, mife-
pristone, has been deemed safe and effective by the FDA for 
over 25 years. Women in nearly 100 countries have safely used 
it for decades. Yet, Mr. Kirschner, Trump's Project 2025 would 
require the FDA to, quote, ``revisit and withdraw'' its initial 
approval of mifepristone, falsely claiming, without evidence, 
these drugs are dangerous and should be illegal.
    Would that Project 2025 agenda be based on sound medicine, 
science, and facts, or would it be a blatant weaponization of 
the FDA?
    Mr. Kirschner. The latter, and it sounds like it's based on 
politics, not on science, not on medicine, and not on what is 
best for women and the decisions they have to make with their 
doctors.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    The FDA recently allowed certified brick-and-mortar 
pharmacies to dispense mifepristone and doctors to prescribe 
mifepristone via telehealth, which expands abortion pill 
access, avoids added cost, and avoids added cost or stigma.
    Trump's Project 2025 calls for the FDA to reverse that 
guidance, despite the Supreme Court recently rejecting that 
argument. It goes even further by eroding the privacy 
protections of abortion patients by promoting prosecution for 
women who take the pills.
    Could this weaponization of our government agencies 
obliterate the privacy of those who obtain or dispense abortion 
pills?
    Mr. Kirschner. It could and it's dangerous.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Project 2025's assault on our basic 
freedoms doesn't just stop at women's health. It undermines the 
safety of whole regions of our Nation.
    Before my time expires, I'll quickly note that Trump's 
dangerous Project 2025 proposes to eliminate the National 
Weather Service in its entirely. I'll remind everyone that we 
have Hurricane Helene who is quickly approaching the shores of 
my State. This is the very agency responsible for helping us 
prepare for and respond to climate-change-driven natural 
disasters. Right now, Hurricane Helene bears down on Florida 
and it's the National Weather Service that provides critical 
forecasts that help warn and keep our communities safe.
    Let's be absolutely clear. Project 2025 is not about 
reform; it's about control. Whether it's women's bodies or the 
agencies that protect us from disaster, Trump's Project 2025 
would erode the freedoms that we all take for granted. We 
cannot allow Trump's dangerous agenda to strip away our rights 
and leave millions more vulnerable than ever. Whether it's 
criminalizing healthcare providers or dismantling the National 
Weather Service, as more hurricanes threaten our coast, Project 
2025 is an existential threat to our Nation's core values and 
safety. We will not let this agenda undo everything we've 
fought for because we will not go back.
    Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair asks unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
coalition's letter on reforms that are needed. The letter is 
addressed to Chair Comer, Chair Turner, and myself, Ranking 
Member Nadler, Raskin, and Himes.
    Without objection, that will be entered.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now will recognize, yes, I'll 
recognize the Ranking Member for as much time as she would 
like. I'll give you 6-8 minutes, if you would like, and then, 
our closing statement after that. Then, I have a couple more 
questions, and then, we'll be adjourned.
    The gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. I don't know what to do with all 
that time. It kind of freaked me out when you said that. I 
started, you know--
    Chair Jordan. You can always yield it back to me.
    Ms. Plaskett. Oh, no, I don't think--I'm not giving up 
what's given to me, I'll tell you that much. You never know 
when you can get that, but I appreciate it, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here, each one of 
you. Thank you for expressing your ideas and your thoughts.
    I did want to ask some followup questions, though, to some 
of those.
    Mr. Inspector General Horowitz, my colleagues across the 
aisle have said that the Inspector General found that the FBI 
intentionally weaponized the security clearance process to 
purge conservatives from its ranks. Mr. Inspector General, did 
your office find that the FBI has a pattern or practice of 
misusing the security clearance adjudication process to purge 
certain FBI employees?
    Mr. Horowitz. We have not made such a finding.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK. Also, there were allegations made that 
the FBI has weaponized any findings, that it was related 
specifically to individuals who might have expressed sentiments 
with regard to January 6th. Did you find that?
    Mr. Horowitz. We haven't made such a finding. We've 
actually, Congresswoman, had complaints come in from both sides 
on these issues--on one side, complaints about field offices 
not taking action in January 6th cases, and on the other side, 
complaints about offices that did take matters in January 6th--
    Ms. Plaskett. So, as usual, it's across the board of the 
political spectrum?
    Mr. Horowitz. We have complaints from whistleblowers on 
both sides on that issue.
    Ms. Plaskett. That is par for the course? You've found in 
the FBI and in your position over, hearing from your other 
Inspector General officers, that complaints may come from both 
sides of the political spectrum?
    Mr. Horowitz. I've certainly seen, with regard to the DOJ 
law enforcement components, issues coming from various 
perspectives, I will say nonideological/ideological complaints 
across the--
    Ms. Plaskett. What about religious? Have you made any 
findings that the FBI security clearance process targets 
Christians?
    Mr. Horowitz. We've not made such a finding.
    Ms. Plaskett. Or targeting military veterans?
    Mr. Horowitz. We've not made such a finding.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    I understand my colleagues' concern that it would appear 
that Democrats are not taking the issue of whistleblowers 
seriously. I think we do. We have a Committee for that, the 
Oversight Committee, for which I, when I was a Member of the 
Oversight, that's when I first met Mr. Horowitz, was in having 
oversight over different agencies and questioning you about 
some of your findings there--some of which, when I first came 
to Congress, were targeted against Democrats, a Democratic 
Administration, at the time the Obama Administration. We've 
gone through a Trump Administration. We are now in a Biden 
Administration. So, the vagaries of political persuasion, 
you've seen them all.
    I think the reason that the Democratic Members have been 
bringing up Project 2025 and President Trump is because it 
presents a global threat, a true weaponization of offices and 
of a position against the American people as a whole.
    We see places like North Korea, Hungary, Iran, now 
Venezuela, where those citizens could not have imagined 20-30 
years before potentially that they are living under a 
dictatorial rule.
    I went to school with individuals--I'm dating myself--in 
the early 1980s with students who had fled Iran. I have been 
around young people in undergrad who have fled North Korea. The 
notion that anything like that could happen in this country 
seems so antithetical to our thinking. We cannot drop the ball 
when we see an individual or a group of individuals who have 
power trying to take that control.
    It is our opinion, many of our opinions, that Trump, for 
his own purposes, has now joined forces with individuals who 
have offered Project 2025 as a means to an end for each one of 
their own desires.
    I would ask to submit to the record a CNN article, ``Trump 
Claims Not to Know Who is Behind Project 2025.'' CNN review 
found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    In this article, and in other places, we will see the nexus 
of relationships between the President and individuals who have 
written this--six of his former Cabinet Secretaries; four 
individuals nominated by the former President as Ambassadors; 
his first Deputy Chief of Staff, my former colleague, Mark 
Meadows, and also, his long-time advisor Stephen Miller, who 
are advising Project 2025.
    The Federal Communications Commissioner under President 
Trump, Brendan Carr; Lisa Correnti, who was a Delegate to the 
United Nations Commission on the Status of Women--all wrote 
components of Project 2025.
    We have the American Accountability Foundation putting 
together a roster of current Federal workers it suspects could 
impede Trump's plan for a second term.
    I would direct your attention to what we have up there on 
the screen, which shows so many associates who have, in fact, 
contributed to the transitional plan for a Presidential Trump 
next term that are part of his orbit. Paul Dans, top official 
in Trump's White House. We have Ben Carson, former HUD 
Secretary; Christopher Miller, Acting Secretary of Defense. 
Peter Navarro wrote a section defending the former President's 
trade policies. This has been drafted as the next conservative 
President's last opportunity.
    The last opportunity for what? Not the America we know now; 
a different form of America--one that meets the demands of 
specific individuals, not all of us; one women that does not 
include us having complete autonomy of our selves; one that 
puts a form of Christianity that may not be my form of 
Christianity. That's why we have a separation of church and 
State, so that we can all worship our God as we wish.
    That's not what Project 2025 is looking toward. Today, you 
may be part of it; tomorrow, you may not be. Today, it may help 
you; tomorrow, it may not.
    I know I'm on the front line; I know my community is on the 
front line, but tomorrow it may be yours. Next week, next 
month, 180 days he's giving himself. Two years from now, it may 
be your son, your daughter pointing, in the military, pointing 
a weapon at their fellow citizen, at their brother, their 
sister who are protesting on the streets of America.
    Because, yes, in Project 2025, it allows the President to 
direct the active military to come to the streets of the United 
States against those that he deems as political rivals. That's 
in Project 2025. Those are the things that are in there--
against us as Americans.
    That's the reason why, Mr. Chair, we keep talking about 
it--not because whistleblowers' issues are unimportant, but 
because this is a clear and present threat right now to the 
American people that we need to join forces with and stop.
    So, I want to thank you for the additional time. While 
we're on the recess, God bless you and your family.
    Chair Jordan. You, too. You, too.
    Ms. Plaskett. I pray safety for all of us as Members, all 
the people who have spoken out, and individuals, we may not 
agree with one another, but I pray that this election goes 
safely and that we are all back here again to continue the 
people's business.
    Chair Jordan. I agree. Just a few more questions, if I 
could.
    Mr. Horowitz, you said you have not seen a pattern, but you 
have found evidence--well, let's say, well, let me do it as a 
question. Have you found any evidence of a focus on religion 
and vaccination status playing a role in discussions about 
clearance decisions?
    Mr. Horowitz. We certainly did as to Mr. Allen.
    Chair Jordan. Of course. That's the whole, the whole point. 
I thought his email, questioning the leadership of the FBI, the 
used that. They used his vaccination status. They used his 
religion. I thought pretty soon they were going to accuse 
Marcus Allen of writing Project 2025. I thought that might 
happen.
    You didn't write Project 2025, did you, Mr. Allen?
    Mr. Allen. No, I never--
    Chair Jordan. You had nothing to do with that.
    Mr. Leavitt, you didn't, either, right? I know Mr. Horowitz 
didn't have anything to do with that.
    Let's go to this questionnaire. Because this questionnaire 
that was used by the FBI in these clearance discussions, I find 
very troubling. In the opening, in sort of the preamble before 
they get to the questions, they say to--now, they're asking 
colleagues to rat on fellow colleagues. They say,

        You are being asked to provide information as a fact witness. 
        Should you refuse to answer or fail to reply, action against 
        your security clearance may be undertaken.

    So, I find this amazing. Like they're going to a colleague, 
in a security clearance investigation, they're asking a 
colleague to talk about that individual, and if they don't, 
they're going to lose their security clearance. I mean then, 
when you look at the questions, do you find that a little 
troubling, Mr. Horowitz?
    Mr. Horowitz. I certainly find the--I'm not sure I find 
necessarily the questioning of individuals about allegations 
troubling. How you tell them about it and talk to them about it 
is concerning, as you indicated, and certainly, the questions 
were highly inappropriate.
    Chair Jordan. Well, certainly, coupled together--hey, we're 
doing a security investigation on Mr. Allen, as an example, and 
if you don't, if you don't answer it, your security clearance 
is in jeopardy. Oh, by the way, here's the question: ``Did Mr. 
Allen ever voice support for President Trump?'' ``Did Mr. Allen 
ever express concerns about the COVID-19 vaccination?'' ``Did 
Mr. Allen ever attend a gun rally?'' That is as troubling as it 
gets.
    Right at the top of this questionnaire, ``FBI Security 
Division, Security Integrity and Investigation Section, 
Clearance Investigation Unit.''
    Mr. Leavitt, have you ever seen anything like this?
    Mr. Leavitt. Not before this last round of whistleblowers, 
but I do think--the point I tried to make earlier is that, even 
if this questionnaire was only typed up by a couple of 
individuals--and to be clear, those are the same ones that were 
worried about the Kelly Cart. So, they were the same ones that 
were worried that their supervisors--
    Chair Jordan. Right.
    Mr. Leavitt. Even where, in cases where this questionnaire 
wasn't used, we've heard from a number of whistleblowers that 
these types of things were asked about, and, of course, we know 
they factored into the decisions. So, I think it's not just 
about the questionnaire.
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Leavitt. I hope that the Inspector General's Office 
will look at how all these issues were focused on by 
leadership.
    Chair Jordan. That's the element of fear Mr. Allen just 
talked about in his last response to Mr. Bishop--the fear that, 
that environment of fear, and this is it in practice right 
here. That is what is scary.
    So, if that's not weaponization of government--earlier, Ms. 
Crockett asked about, would the weaponization of government 
include certain things? It would certainly include this in the 
environment described by Mr. Allen, and it would certainly 
include the 27 months that he had to live through and the 24 
months now Garret O'Boyle has had to live through.
    I just find that--again, I want to thank you all for being 
here.
    Oh, Mr. Kirschner, would the weaponization of government 
include lying to the FISA Court to spy on a Presidential 
campaign? You got asked a series of questions of ``Would it 
include . . . ?'' I'm just curious if you thought that would be 
the weaponization of government.
    Mr. Kirschner. Lying to a court, any court, FISA Court or 
otherwise, is deeply, deeply troubling.
    Chair Jordan. That wasn't the question. Would the weapon-
ization of government include lying to a FISA Court to spy on a 
Presidential campaign?
    Mr. Kirschner. I would suppose it could.
    Chair Jordan. Could?
    Mr. Kirschner. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. OK. Great. OK.
    Would it include text messages written by people who were 
involved in that effort to spy on a Presidential campaign? Text 
messages like ``Don't worry, we'll stop Trump,'' would that be 
the weaponization of government as well?
    Mr. Kirschner. I think that's inappropriate language 
because we're supposed to be doing our work apolitically, 
without fear or favor. So, I think that's ill-advised.
    Chair Jordan. It sure was. It's so ill-advised Mr. Mueller 
kicked them off, kicked those individuals off his, his team. 
So, it was so ill-advised that Kevin Clinesmith got prosecuted 
for lying to the FISA Court to go spy on a Presidential 
campaign. That seems to me to be the weaponization of 
government as well.
    I want to thank all of you for being here.
    Mr. Allen, we really thank you. You're the one who's had to 
endure this. Your testimony, too, the strength of your faith, 
and your family, I think is just inspiring. We appreciate your 
service to our country, your service to this Committee, and to 
the country for telling your story and being willing to come 
forward and work with Mr. Leavitt.
    Mr. Horowitz, we appreciate the work you've done over the 
years and in getting this information to us.
    With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Select Subcommittee was 
adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/By Event.aspx?EventID=117688.

                                 [all]