These Two Letters Explain Why Democrats Were Furious With Ryan Zinke This Week

One had to do with hiring friends, the other with sexual harassment at Interior.

Alex Edelman via ZUMA Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has not attempted to acquire a Chik-fil-A franchise for his wife, asked personal aides to buy a used mattress, or spent $1,560 on 12 fancy pens as has EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who is the subject of 12 separate investigations. But Democrats have not ignored some questionable behavior in Zinke’s agency and described some of their concerns in a recent pair of open letters. 

The first letter, from June 5 and signed by 12 Democratic senators, rips into the secretary for charging a political appointee with the task of reviewing any grant applications that exceed a $50,000 threshold. His senior adviser Steven Howke, a political appointee who attended kindergarten with Zinke, should not have been inserted into the bureaucratic role, the letter stated. The senators wrote that his presence “weakens confidence in the integrity of the DOI review process and at the very least, creates the appearance of improper political interference in program decisions that should always be merit-based.”  

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), one of the letter’s co-authors, went even further in excoriating Zinke during an interview with Yahoo News.

“Taxpayer-funded federal grants should be awarded on merit, not politics,” she said. “Secretary Zinke’s decision to hire a childhood friend with no relevant experience to oversee the grant review process raises serious ethical questions that DOI needs to address.”

The Department of the Interior has not issued a public response to the letter, which goes on to ask Zinke to identify “a detailed list of all financial assistance programs administered by the Department,” the “percentage of grants” subject to this new process, in addition to a series of other demands. 

Howke’s position is one more example of the shift of power into the hands of political appointees that aligns with a general attitude of distrust across the Trump administration toward so-called “Obama holdovers”—career public servants whose experience in government generally extends through multiple administrations. 

Zinke, a former one-term congressman from Montana, has been especially suspicious of the bureaucrats in his department. In a wide-ranging story in the New Yorker last month, reporter Evan Osnos described the way Zinke approached managing career government officials: 

“I got thirty per cent of the crew that’s not loyal to the flag,” he said, in September, to an advisory board dominated by oil and gas executives. He likened his leadership of the department to capturing a ship at sea, and vowed to prevail over resistant employees. Zinke’s comment drew a rebuke from fifteen former Interior appointees, in Republican and Democratic Administrations, who appealed to him to let public servants “do their jobs without fear of retaliation on political grounds.” 

Grant reviews are not the only area that Democrats have criticized in the management of the Interior Department this week. On Wednesday, all 18 Democratic members of the House Natural Resources Committee wrote to Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) requesting a hearing into sexual harassment at DOI. 

Their letter comes on the heels of a report issued by Democratic committee members that found 1 in 10 DOI employees reported experiencing sexual harassment in the past year. 

“Nearly one year ago, I asked Chairman Bishop for a hearing on this important issue,” Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) said in a statement. “Now here we are still in search of answers about what Secretary Zinke and other leaders at the Department of Interior plan to do to address the pervasive sexual harassment culture.”

Reports of harassment and other forms of sexual misconduct across DOI and the National Park Service predate Zinke’s tenure and include highly-publicized allegations at Grand Canyon National Park, which were revealed in a report filed by the department’s Inspector General in January 2016. 

The top-ranking official at the NPS, P. Daniel Smith, was later investigated in March after reports emerged of him “making a gesture involving his genitalia in the hallways” of DOI headquarters.

Zinke vowed to curb the department’s culture of sexual harassment and has introduced a series of reforms in recent months, but committee Democrats requested “strong anti-harassment” policies across each of the department’s bureaus in addition to bulked-up staff trainings and increased resources toward addressing complaints.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate