Hatch Act Filings - Blanche and Patel - Combined
September 3, 2026
Hatch Act Unit United States Office of Special Counsel 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 hatchact@osc.gov
Re: Complaint and request for investigation concerning prohibited political activity by the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at a campaign-style event in Garden City, New York, on August 14, 2026
To Whom It May Concern:
The Steady State is a nonpartisan organization of more than 430 former national security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and homeland security officials who have served in administrations of both parties. Its members have devoted their careers to safeguarding the integrity of United States government institutions, including the political neutrality of federal law enforcement that the Hatch Act exists to protect.
I write to report conduct by Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel that appears to violate the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326, and to request that the Office of Special Counsel open an investigation pursuant to its investigative duty under 5 U.S.C. § 1216(a)(1). On Friday, August 14, 2026, during ordinary business hours, two of the nation’s most senior federal law enforcement officials appeared, under their official titles, as warm-up speakers at an event at the Nassau County Police Academy in Garden City, New York, that the Associated Press described as "overwhelmingly a political one, with Trump lashing Democrats and promoting his record and his party’s candidates." The featured local official at the event, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, is the declared, presidentially endorsed Republican nominee for Governor of New York in the November 2026 election, and he spoke from the same stage. The Attorney General praised him by name from the podium.
Contemporaneous reporting describes the event as, in substantial part, a campaign event for the benefit of Republican candidates, including the Republican nominee for Governor of New York.
1
Mr. Blakeman accepted the Republican nomination for Governor of New York on February 11, 2026, and will face Governor Kathy Hochul in the November 2026 general election. President Trump has publicly endorsed his candidacy. Mr. Blakeman is therefore a "candidate" for "partisan political office," and activity directed toward his electoral success is "political activity" — "an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group" — within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 734.101.
The August 14 event was framed as an official appearance concerning reductions in violent crime, with the President scheduled to speak at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time. The contemporaneous record establishes that the framing and the function diverged. The Associated Press reported that "the event was overwhelmingly a political one, with Trump lashing Democrats and promoting his record and his party’s candidates"; that "[t]o the side of the stage during his remarks were the new U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, who each spoke to warm up the crowd before the president"; and that "[t]heir appearance at an event that in part was designed to help Republican candidates broke longstanding norms in which the nation’s law enforcement generally tried to steer clear of participating in overtly political events." Candidate Blakeman himself "briefly took the stage during Trump’s remarks," and the President praised him by name — "I want to thank Bruce Blakeman for working closely with federal law enforcement to remove more than 2,000 migrant criminals from Nassau County"; "That’s why your records are so good. That’s why you’re number one in the whole country." The President’s remarks, per the transcript, went further: he expressly urged the audience to elect Mr. Blakeman — "And that’s why we have to get Bruce into office" — and attacked the opposing candidate by name: "Hochul and the radical left stand with the gang members, child predators, violent felons." Other speakers campaigned expressly from the same stage during the President’s remarks — one asking the crowd, "are we ready to elect Bruce Blakeman, the next governor," and another urging, "you have no choice anymore but to vote Republican. Vote Bruce Blakeman. Vote every Republican you can find." Reported speakers included Republican elected officials and political figures — Representatives Nick LaLota, Nicole Malliotakis, and Andrew Garbarino, former Representative Anthony D’Esposito, now Inspector General of the Department of Labor, former state Assemblyman Mike LiPetri, now the Republican nominee for New York’s 3rd Congressional District, and Town of Hempstead Receiver of Taxes Jeanine Driscoll, now the Republican nominee for New York’s 4th Congressional District — and an array of uniformed local police officers stood behind the speakers throughout. Roll Call likewise reported that the President spoke with "uniformed law enforcement personnel seated behind him, many wearing white ceremonial gloves for an occasion that was billed as an official White House event but that mirrored his campaign rallies." One contemporaneous account described the event as "framed officially as a forum on public safety" but functioning "in practice as a full-throated campaign rally, with Trump’s endorsement of Blakeman the central political message of the afternoon."
2
Attorney General Blanche’s remarks
Attorney General Blanche — confirmed by the Senate on August 8, 2026 by a 50–49 vote and sworn in on August 10, 2026, four days before the event — spoke immediately before the President. A transcription of the broadcast of his remarks records the following. He told the audience: "I want to thank the Nassau County Police Department for hosting us today in this phenomenal facility and thank you. We just heard from our great Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman who is doing everything we need him to do to back the blue, to support law enforcement, and to make this county . . . a safe county that we can all raise our kids in." He identified himself by his office — "I was recently confirmed as attorney general of the United States" — and invoked its work in the first person: "My administration and my Department of Justice, if anybody touches a federal law enforcement officer in any way inappropriate, we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law." He described the setting from the podium, telling the audience that federal agencies were "working with troopers, working with law enforcement like right behind me right now." He presented the Department’s record as the event’s celebratory core: "[s]ince . . . the beginning of President Trump’s administration[,] [t]he Department of Justice has moved at lightning speed. We have charged [a] hundred and seventy thousand criminals in this country, and just to put that in perspective, that’s fifty thousand more than the last administration did over the same time period," and "the reason why we’re here today is to celebrate what we’ve done making America safe again and delivering on President Trump’s promise." He closed by observing, "So I am the last speaker before the main event, President Trump." Public Citizen’s August 18, 2026 complaint to this Office states that Mr. Blanche was introduced at the event in his official capacity as Attorney General.
Director Patel’s remarks and the FBI’s official publication of them
Director Patel — confirmed by the Senate on February 20, 2025 by a 51–49 vote — spoke immediately before the Attorney General. He spoke under his official title from the outset: his parents, he told the audience, had "lawfully immigrated to this country to watch their son become the ninth director of the FBI." The transcription of the broadcast portion of his remarks records an address built on an explicit favorable comparison of the incumbent administration’s record against its predecessor’s: "President Trump, you have succeeded in restoring law and order to the precipice it should be on. The men and women in law and order across this country have partnered with the federal agencies, including the FBI and our prosecutor partners at the Department of Justice, to apprehend twice as many violent offenders in the last 16 months as they did in the last two years of the Biden administration alone"; and "And selfishly, President Trump, I’m living the American dream because of you. I’m living the American dream because you backed the law and order. You backed the blue. You funded the police and you let the men and women of law enforcement put the handcuffs on bad guys instead of putting the handcuffs on them. . . . And thanks to President Trump’s brilliant leadership, the American dream is not a dream anymore. It is a reality." The FBI
3
thereafter published the Director’s remarks on its official website as "Full Remarks: Director Patel Addresses Police in Nassau County, N.Y." — confirming both that the Director appeared in his official capacity and that official FBI resources and communications channels were used in connection with, and to amplify, his appearance. The Bureau’s published page includes a complete transcript of the Director’s remarks. It records the Director framing the event in the vocabulary of the President’s campaign — "President Trump’s mission to make America safe again as he campaigned. He is delivering on that promise" — and recounting his "ten years working for President Trump." The remarks contain no reference to Mr. Blakeman, the gubernatorial race, or the midterm elections; the Office should nonetheless obtain and review the complete video and the Bureau’s records concerning the decision to produce and publish it.
The conduct described above implicates the Hatch Act’s core prohibition, from which neither official is exempt.
The Hatch Act provides that an employee "may not . . . use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1). "Employee" includes "any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in . . . an Executive agency." 5 U.S.C. § 7322(1). Both officials are covered. The Attorney General is subject to § 7323(a) in full. Employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are additionally "further restricted" under 5 U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(B)(i)(II), but that additional prohibition expressly excepts an employee "appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," 5 U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(A). Director Patel is therefore not subject to that additional prohibition, but, like the Attorney General, he remains fully subject to § 7323(a)(1)’s prohibition on using official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election. Neither official is exempt from that prohibition. This Office’s implementing regulation specifies that the prohibition includes "[u]sing his or her official title while participating in political activity." 5 C.F.R. § 734.302(b)(1). And as the Office concluded in its November 2021 report on political activities by senior officials during the 2020 election, "an employee may not support or oppose a candidate for partisan political office while acting in an official capacity or otherwise use the employee’s official authority in connection with the employee’s political activity," and statements of official-capacity praise for a candidate at political events are "akin to campaigning for or against a candidate for partisan political office." The prohibition does not require express advocacy or magic words.
This Office has reached that conclusion before. It found a Hatch Act violation where a Cabinet secretary’s official-capacity interview mixed personal political praise for a presidential candidate with agency business, notwithstanding the secretary’s own disclaimer that he was speaking in his personal capacity. Report of Prohibited Political Activity, Julián Castro (HA-16-3113) (June 24, 2016). It reached the same conclusion where a Cabinet secretary made extemporaneous partisan remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity. Report of Prohibited Political Activity, Kathleen Sebelius
4
(HA-12-1989) (Aug. 23, 2012). Neither finding required the official to have used express advocacy or scripted campaign language; both confirm that an official-capacity disclaimer does not, by itself, foreclose a finding that an appearance mixing official duties with partisan praise violated § 7323(a)(1).
The Act draws no distinction by rank, and this Office has recently confirmed that it enforces the Act against employees at every level. In February 2026, the Office publicized three settlements over the past six months, including (1) a 21-day unpaid suspension imposed on an employee "for violating prohibitions against using official authority or influence to affect an election and engaging in political activity while on duty" — the same statutory prohibition at issue here; (2) a 30-day unpaid suspension for partisan messaging over official systems; and (3) a 10-day unpaid suspension for a partisan candidacy. The Office’s announcement quoted Charles Baldis, then Senior Counsel and now Special Counsel, that "[t]hese settlements reflect OSC’s dedication to preventing the political abuse of government authority and resources by officials." On August 20, 2026, six days after the event described in this complaint, the Office filed disciplinary complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board against a Postal Service employee and a Department of Veterans Affairs employee for candidacy and solicitation violations, and the Special Counsel stated that the Office "will not hesitate to pursue discipline before the MSPB when appropriate." The same day, CREW wrote to the Special Counsel that the Office had "open investigations into six senior Trump administration appointees," one "outstanding for more than a year" and four "pending for more than 10 months," while "[d]uring a similar period, OSC has resolved a number of Hatch Act investigations involving several lower level federal executive branch employees." The Steady State notes this record because the Act’s protection of a politically neutral civil service depends on its being applied regardless of the rank of the official who violates it, and because the conduct described here rests on a public record that requires no lengthy investigation to assemble. The precedents cited above show that the Office has applied § 7323(a)(1) to sitting Cabinet secretaries of the administration then in office. The Office’s current enforcement record shows that it applies the same provision to line employees. This complaint asks that the same standard be applied here.
Both officials would be expected to have knowledge of the Hatch Act’s restrictions. Senate-confirmed appointees across the executive branch, including at the Department of Justice, routinely receive Hatch Act briefings as part of the pre- and post-confirmation ethics process, and agency ethics officials generally provide onboarding guidance on political-activity restrictions to incoming Cabinet-level and sub-cabinet officials. This Office’s own findings against Cabinet-level officials, cited above, reflect that Hatch Act awareness at that level of government is standard. Whether the Department maintains materials specific to the Attorney General and the Director comparable to those the Department of Defense has issued for its own Senate-confirmed appointees is a matter the Office may wish to develop in the course of its investigation.
5
The public record presents facts relevant to each element of the § 7323(a)(1) standard as to the Attorney General. He appeared and was introduced under his official title at an event that was, in substantial part, a campaign event; he identified himself from the podium as "attorney general of the United States"; he deployed the institutional accomplishments of "my Department of Justice" as the substance of his remarks; and he singled out, by name and with unqualified praise, the declared Republican nominee for Governor of New York, eleven weeks before the election, at an event organized around the President’s support for that nominee. Whether praise of that kind — delivered by the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to an audience assembled in substantial part of uniformed officers — constituted support for a candidate delivered in an official capacity is precisely the determination Congress assigned to this Office, and the public record warrants that the determination be made.
I anticipate the response that the event was an official public-safety appearance and that praise of a county executive’s law-enforcement cooperation is official, not electoral, speech. That framing is difficult to reconcile with the contemporaneous record now before the Office. Where the setting and content of an appearance are in substantial part electoral — as the Associated Press and other contemporaneous accounts uniformly describe this event — using an official appearance for activity that is, in substantial part, political does not place that activity outside the Act merely because of its official setting; that is consistent with the pattern this Office’s 2021 report addressed. Nor was Mr. Blakeman merely a local official: he was, to the knowledge of every participant, the Republican nominee for Governor, appearing at an event at which the President expressly urged his election — "we have to get Bruce into office" — and attacked his opponent by name. The electoral character of the proceedings the Attorney General warmed up is not a matter of inference; it is on the face of the transcript. Praise of an official’s performance in his current office is, in that setting, the standard idiom of incumbent-style campaign advocacy.
As to Director Patel, I am deliberate about what the available record does and does not show. His remarks — the Bureau’s published video — contain no reference to Mr. Blakeman, and this complaint does not allege that they do. But § 7323(a)(1) does not turn on naming the candidate. The question is whether the official used official authority or influence in activity directed toward the success of a party or candidate — and serving as an official-capacity warm-up speaker at an event "in part . . . designed to help Republican candidates," in remarks lauding the administration’s record in expressly comparative partisan terms, followed by the Bureau’s official amplification of those remarks, warrants investigation into whether the Director’s participation, and the Bureau’s subsequent amplification of it, were undertaken for an electoral purpose. At a minimum, the allegation "concern[s] political activity prohibited under subchapter III of chapter 73," and the Office’s investigative duty under 5 U.S.C. § 1216(a)(1) — "the Special Counsel shall . . . conduct an investigation of any allegation concerning . . . political activity prohibited under subchapter III of chapter 73" — is framed in mandatory terms.
6
The on-duty exemption for Senate-confirmed appointees supplies no defense, and its funding condition itself warrants investigation.
Both officials may qualify for the limited exemption of 5 U.S.C. § 7324(b), which permits certain Senate-confirmed appointees to engage in political activity otherwise barred by § 7324(a) — while on duty, or in a federal building — but only "if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury." Two points follow. First, the exemption reaches only the on-duty and workplace restrictions of § 7324(a); it provides no defense to a violation of § 7323(a)(1), which admits of no exemption for Senate-confirmed appointees. Second, the exemption is conditional. Both officials appeared at the event on a Friday afternoon in the course of their official schedules. The regulation excludes from the costs subject to that condition certain expenses the Government would have incurred regardless of the political activity, including the compensation and expenses of a Government employee required in the performance of his or her duties to accompany or assist the person engaging in the political activity, and the cost of special security arrangements. 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(b). If nonexcluded costs attributable to the political component of the appearances — including the allocable share of mixed official-political travel and any event-specific expenses — were paid with Treasury funds and were not reimbursed within a reasonable period or otherwise allocated as 5 C.F.R. § 734.503 requires — "[t]he costs associated with the political activities . . . may not be paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States" — the condition fails, and each official’s mid-afternoon, on-duty participation in political activity would have violated § 7324(a) independently. The relevant records — travel authorizations, funding and reimbursement records, and event-planning communications — are exclusively in the government’s hands. Whether the condition was satisfied is a question for investigation rather than a conclusion this complaint draws.
Relationship to Public Citizen’s pending complaint.
The Steady State prepared this complaint independently and did not coordinate it with Public Citizen. This complaint is submitted independently and stands on its own; it adds a complaint naming Director Patel as a respondent, transcribed quotations of both officials’ broadcast remarks, and the appropriated-funds questions arising under § 7324(b) and § 734.503. The Office may of course consider both complaints in whatever manner it deems appropriate.
Requested action
Investigation and acknowledgment. Open an investigation of both officials pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1216(a)(1), and acknowledge this complaint in writing.
Preservation. Obtain and preserve at the outset: the complete video and any transcripts of the event, including but not limited to the FBI’s published "Full Remarks" video of Director Patel; all Department of Justice and FBI records concerning the planning, approval, staffing, funding, travel,
7
and security for the officials’ participation; the invitation extended to each official and its source, any run-of-show or program for the event, and the prepared text of each official’s remarks; any Hatch Act training, briefing, or advice provided to either official in connection with his appointment or the event; all communications among the Department, the FBI, the White House, Nassau County (including the Office of the County Executive and the Nassau County Police Department), and any campaign or political entity — including the Blakeman campaign and any party committee — concerning the event; and all records concerning cost allocation or reimbursement under 5 C.F.R. § 734.503, including any cost-sharing, hosting, or reimbursement arrangement with Nassau County or any of its agencies.
Findings and referral. Make written findings as to each official under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7323(a)(1) and 7324(a), including whether the § 7324(b) funding condition was satisfied; and, if the Office concludes that either official violated the Act and that disciplinary action is warranted, present the Office’s complaint, supporting statement, and any response to the President for appropriate action, as 5 U.S.C. § 1215(b) directs for an employee in a confidential, policy-making, policy-determining, or policy-advocating position appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and make the fact and substance of that presentation public to the maximum extent permitted by law, consistent with the Office’s practice in prior matters involving senior officials.
Guidance. Issue such advisory guidance to the Department of Justice and the FBI as will prevent recurrence during the remainder of the 2026 election cycle.
Disposition. Provide written notice of the disposition of this complaint and, if the Office declines to investigate or closes the matter without findings, a written statement of the reasons.
Conclusion
This complaint does not presume that any identified person has violated the law, and it accuses no one of a crime. It asks the Office of Special Counsel to determine whether the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the FBI, by appearing under their official titles at what contemporaneous reporting describes as a campaign-style event for the benefit of Republican candidates — at which the Attorney General praised the Republican nominee for Governor of New York by name from the podium, and to which the FBI lent its official communications channels — used their official authority or influence in a manner the Hatch Act forbids, and whether the costs of that participation were borne by the Treasury in violation of the conditions Congress attached. Those Hatch Act determinations fall within this Office’s exclusive jurisdiction to investigate, and they require access to records available only to your office. The Hatch Act was enacted precisely to keep the machinery and prestige of federal law enforcement out of partisan elections, and the integrity of that guarantee requires that the questions raised here be examined promptly rather than left to characterization by the officials involved.
8
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise, to the extent permitted by law, whether it has been docketed for investigation.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven A. Cash Executive Director, The Steady State
cashs@thesteadystate.org (212) 685-9660
9
THE STEADY STATE
September 3, 2026
Office of the Inspector General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Submitted via the OIG Hotline and by mail
Re: Request for investigation and preservation of evidence concerning the use of Department of Justice and FBI resources in connection with a partisan political event on August 14, 2026
To Whom It May Concern:
The Steady State is a nonpartisan organization of more than 430 former national security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and homeland security officials who have served in administrations of both parties. Its members have devoted their careers to safeguarding the integrity of United States government institutions, including the political neutrality of federal law enforcement.
I write to refer for investigation the participation of Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel in an August 14, 2026 event at the Nassau County Police Academy in Garden City, New York, and the use of Department and Bureau resources in connection with it. The Associated Press reported that "the event was overwhelmingly a political one, with Trump lashing Democrats and promoting his record and his party’s candidates"; that the Attorney General and the Director "each spoke to warm up the crowd before the president"; and that "[t]heir appearance at an event that in part was designed to help Republican candidates broke longstanding norms in which the nation’s law enforcement generally tried to steer clear of participating in overtly political events." Roll Call likewise reported that the President spoke with "uniformed law enforcement personnel seated behind him, many wearing white ceremonial gloves for an occasion that was billed as an official White House event but that mirrored his campaign rallies." The featured local official, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, is the declared, presidentially endorsed Republican nominee for Governor of New York; the Attorney General told the audience, "We just heard from our great Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman who is doing everything we need him to do to back the blue, to support law enforcement . . . ," and the President, per the transcript of his remarks, expressly urged the audience to elect Mr. Blakeman: "And that’s why we have to get Bruce into office." The FBI subsequently published the Director’s remarks on its official website as "Full
Remarks: Director Patel Addresses Police in Nassau County, N.Y." The enclosed complaint to the Office of Special Counsel addresses the Hatch Act dimensions of this conduct; its factual recitation, with quotations and sources, is incorporated here. This referral addresses the matters within your Office’s distinct jurisdiction over waste, misuse of Department resources, and employee misconduct.
The arrangement raises at least four questions requiring prompt examination.
First, investigators should determine whether funds appropriated to the Department or the Bureau paid costs attributable to the political component of the event — travel, aircraft, advance work, staff time, and security beyond the categories excluded by 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(b), which excepts the compensation and expenses of a Government employee required in the performance of his or her duties to accompany or assist the person engaging in the political activity and the cost of special security arrangements. The question is therefore whether nonexcluded costs — including the allocable share of mixed official-political travel and any event-specific expenses — were borne by appropriated funds. Appropriations "shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made." 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a). And the exemption on which both officials would presumably rely to engage in political activity while on duty, 5 U.S.C. § 7324(b), applies only "if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury." Investigators should determine whether any allocation or reimbursement of mixed official-political travel costs was performed as § 734.503 requires — and if so, by whom, on what methodology, and in what amount. Investigators should likewise determine whether any costs of the event were borne by, shared with, or reimbursed to Nassau County or its agencies, and should obtain any hosting, cost-sharing, or reimbursement arrangement with the county. Investigators should also determine whether any expenditure of appropriated funds was consistent with the purposes for which those funds were appropriated, see 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), independently of whether the cost-allocation requirements applicable under the Hatch Act were satisfied.
Second, investigators should examine the decision to record, produce, and publish the Director’s remarks at this event through the FBI’s official website and any official social media accounts, and any parallel Department publication of the Attorney General’s remarks: whether official resources were used to amplify a partisan political event, and who directed it.
Third, investigators should determine whether any Department or Bureau employees were directed, requested, or pressured to plan, staff, attend, or otherwise support the event’s political component. Such direction could raise issues not only under the Hatch Act but under 18 U.S.C. § 610, which makes it unlawful "to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government . . . to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity."
Fourth, investigators should determine whether Department or Bureau personnel, systems, or official time were used to coordinate the event with the White House political operation, Nassau County or its agencies, the Blakeman campaign, or any party committee, and whether any
2
Department policy governing participation by Department officials in political events was consulted, waived, or violated.
Depending on the facts, the conduct may implicate criminal as well as administrative provisions.
Two statutes warrant attention as the facts are developed. 18 U.S.C. § 595 reaches a covered person who "uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate" — but only for the federal offices the statute enumerates, and only where the official acts "in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States." Because Mr. Blakeman is a candidate for state office, § 595 would come into play only to the extent the evidence shows official authority deployed toward the success of federal candidates — a live question, given reporting that the event was designed in part to help Republican candidates generally and the participation of sitting Members of Congress — Representatives Nick LaLota, Nicole Malliotakis, and Andrew Garbarino, each of whom holds an office the statute enumerates and is a candidate for re-election in November 2026 (Statements of Candidacy on file with the Federal Election Commission: LaLota, Malliotakis, Garbarino). Two Republican nominees for the House also spoke from the stage: former state Assemblyman Mike LiPetri, the nominee in New York’s 3rd Congressional District, and Town of Hempstead Receiver of Taxes Jeanine Driscoll, the nominee in the 4th District (Statements of Candidacy: LiPetri, Driscoll). The transcript of the President’s remarks further records that he introduced from the same stage an individual he identified as "running for Congress," and that other speakers made express electoral appeals from that stage, including an exhortation to "[v]ote every Republican you can find." The present record does not establish either official’s candidate-specific purpose; and whether the statute’s financing clause qualifies the conduct of federal officers, and whether the evidence would satisfy it here, are threshold questions this referral does not attempt to resolve. Section 610, addressed above, would be implicated if federal employees were commanded or coerced into political activity in connection with the event. Should the investigation develop evidence supporting either theory, I request that the matter be referred to the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section or, given the identity of the officials involved, handled under the Department’s conflict-of-interest procedures, including 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 as applicable, 28 C.F.R. Part 600, and the special-attorney authorities of 28 U.S.C. §§ 515 and 543.
Requested action
Preservation. Direct the immediate preservation of: all travel authorizations, manifests, expense records, and reimbursement or cost-allocation records for the Attorney General, the Director, and accompanying staff and security details for August 14, 2026; all event-planning records and communications, including with the Executive Office of the President, Nassau County (including the Office of the County Executive and the Nassau County Police Department), the Blakeman campaign, and any party committee; all records concerning the production and publication of the officials’ remarks on official websites and social media; all internal ethics or Hatch Act advice sought or given in connection with the event; all records of any hosting, cost-sharing, or reimbursement
3
arrangement with Nassau County or any of its agencies; and all calendars, itineraries, and duty-status records for both officials for that date.
Investigative determinations. Determine who approved the officials’ participation and on what stated basis; how the costs of that participation were funded, allocated, and, if at all, reimbursed; whether official communications resources were used to amplify the event and at whose direction; whether any employee was directed or pressured to support the event’s political component; and whether Department policies governing political activities were followed.
Coordination. The Office of Special Counsel has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Hatch Act complaints, and this referral does not ask your Office to duplicate it. This referral invokes your Office’s authority under 5 U.S.C. § 413(b)(2) to investigate allegations of administrative misconduct by employees of the Department. To the extent any discrete allegation relates to the exercise of an attorney’s authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice, and therefore falls within 5 U.S.C. § 413(b)(3), I request that it be referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility as that provision requires, and that I be so informed to the extent permitted by law.
This referral does not presume that any identified person has committed a crime. It asks the responsible authorities to determine whether the funds, resources, and personnel of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were used in support of a partisan political event and, if so, whether that use violated federal law or Department policy. The integrity of federal law enforcement and the proper use of appropriated funds require prompt examination.
Please confirm receipt of this referral and advise, to the extent permitted by law, whether it has been directed to the appropriate investigative components. If the Office declines to open an investigation, I respectfully request a written statement of the basis for that decision.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven A. Cash Executive Director, The Steady State
cashs@thesteadystate.org (212) 685-9660
Enclosure: Complaint to the Office of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Unit.
4
THE STEADY STATE
September 3, 2026
Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1301 New York Avenue, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: Transmittal for review — potential election-related offenses in connection with the August 14, 2026 event at the Nassau County Police Academy, Garden City, New York
To Whom It May Concern:
The Steady State is a nonpartisan organization of more than 430 former national security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and homeland security officials who have served in administrations of both parties.
I write to transmit for your review the enclosed complaint to the Office of Special Counsel and referral to the Department’s Office of the Inspector General concerning the participation of Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, in their official capacities and during business hours, in an August 14, 2026 event that the Associated Press described as "overwhelmingly a political one" and as "in part . . . designed to help Republican candidates." The enclosures set out the facts, with quotations of both officials’ remarks and hyperlinked sources.
I am deliberate about the limits of this transmittal. On the current public record, the principal violations indicated are civil and administrative — the Hatch Act matters now before the Office of Special Counsel. This letter identifies two criminal statutes solely so that they may be evaluated by the component with charging expertise as additional facts are developed. 18 U.S.C. § 595 is confined by its terms to conduct affecting the enumerated federal candidacies and reaches official conduct only "in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States," and so would be implicated only if official authority was deployed toward the success of federal candidates at or through the event — a question the record leaves open, given that sitting Members of Congress participated — Representatives Nick LaLota, Nicole Malliotakis, and Andrew Garbarino, each of whom holds an office the statute enumerates and is a candidate for re-election in November 2026 (Statements of Candidacy on file with the Federal Election Commission: LaLota, Malliotakis, Garbarino) — and that reporting describes the event as designed in part to help Republican candidates generally; the transcript of the President’s remarks records that he introduced from the same stage an individual he identified as "running for Congress," and that
other speakers made express electoral appeals from that stage. Two Republican nominees for the House — former state Assemblyman Mike LiPetri (New York’s 3rd District) and Town of Hempstead Receiver of Taxes Jeanine Driscoll (4th District) — also spoke from the stage (Statements of Candidacy: LiPetri, Driscoll). The present record does not establish either official’s candidate-specific purpose or the financing nexus the statute requires. 18 U.S.C. § 610 would be implicated if any federal employee was commanded or coerced to engage in political activity in connection with the event. Whether the facts satisfy either statute is a question the enclosed referral asks the Inspector General to develop; I ask that the Section coordinate with the Office of the Inspector General to that end. This transmittal identifies the theories without asserting that they would prevail.
Because this matter concerns the Attorney General personally, I further request that the Section determine at the threshold what recusal or other conflict procedures are required, including 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 as applicable, and that, if the circumstances satisfy the standards of 28 C.F.R. § 600.1, the official in whom the Attorney General’s authority then rests determine whether appointment of a Special Counsel under 28 C.F.R. Part 600 is warranted. The Section should also consider such transfer or special-attorney authorities as may otherwise be appropriate, including those of 28 U.S.C. §§ 515 and 543, so that any evaluation of these questions is not conducted under the supervision of a subject of the inquiry.
This transmittal does not presume that any identified person has committed a crime. It asks the Section to determine whether the arrangement described in the enclosures implicates the criminal statutes identified above and, if so, to proceed as the facts and the law warrant.
Please confirm receipt of this transmittal and advise, to the extent permitted by law, of its disposition.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven A. Cash Executive Director, The Steady State
cashs@thesteadystate.org (212) 685-9660
Enclosures: (1) Complaint to the Office of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Unit; (2) Referral to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General.