Chad Wolf Finally Had a Nomination Hearing—10 Months Too Late

Wolf has overseen countless controversies as acting chief—including allegations he was illegitimately appointed.

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 23: Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary testifies during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

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

Chad Wolf, the acting Homeland Security secretary who has presided over a slew of controversies this year, struck a defiant pose at his long-anticipated nomination hearing before a Senate committee Wednesday morning, calling news reports about DHS contracts heading to his wife’s company “fabricated” and a whistleblower’s allegation that he and other agency leaders squashed intelligence memos detailing Russian attacks on the upcoming election “patently false.”

Since Wolf assumed his post in November, DHS has sent camo-wearing agents to face off against anti-racist protesters in Portland, faced allegations of forcing hysterectomies on women in a Georgia immigration detention center, and been accused of withholding the release of an intelligence report warning of foreign plots against Joe Biden. He came under additional fire last month when the Government Accountability Office determined that Wolf was appointed acting secretary as a result of an “invalid order of succession.”  (DHS, which encompasses US Customs and Border Protection, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Transportation Security Administration, hasn’t had a confirmed leader since Kirstjen Nielsen left the job in April 2019.)

Here are some additional highlights from Wolf’s relatively brief hearing:

  • On allegations Wolf modified intelligence reports: Michigan Democrat Gary Peters questioned Wolf on why the department withheld information from a July intelligence report warning of Russian misinformation plots against the Biden campaign. Wolf denied that his actions to delay the release of the report were politically motivated and said he simply didn’t think the report was up to his standards—he held it back from the public until the “quality” was “improved” in September. “Does it normally take close to two months for you to bring a two-page report up to the quality standards that you think are necessary?” Peters asked. “No, it doesn’t,” Wolf said, pointing to leadership changes in that office that may have caused delays. Peters then noted it was “curious that the report was only issued after news broke about it.” 
  • On contracts given to wife’s firm: Hours before the hearing, NBC News reported that DHS gave more than $6 million in contracts to a consulting firm where Wolf’s wife is an executive. Wolf told the committee that he had “just found out about it last night when the media inquiry came in,” and that he had no role in procurement of DHS contracts.
  • On whistleblower allegations of forced hysterectomies in ICE custody: Wolf said the DHS Office of Inspector General already has “individuals at the facility in Georgia” and he “look forward to that investigation.” He called the whistleblower’s claims into question, saying that some of the “most dramatic allegations” are just allegations. “But if there is a kernel of truth to any of that, you can guarantee that I will hold those responsible accountable.” 
  • On white supremacists: Peters asked Wolf to confirm that the department believes white supremacist violence to be the “most deadly threat facing our nation today” domestically. Wolf said that “racially and ethnically motivated individuals and certainly white supremacist extremist, from a lethality standpoint,” especially in 2018 and 2019, “are certainly the most persistent and lethal threat when we talk about domestic violence extremist.”
  • On family separation: Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) read a 2017 memo written by Wolf to Nielsen in which he outlined ideas for “what she can do right away” at the US-Mexico border. Family separation was the second item on the list. As Nielsen’s chief of staff, Rosen said, Wolf suggested that the agency separate parents from their children at the border and reclassify the kids as unaccompanied minors when they took them into custody separately. “But those children were not actually unaccompanied, were they, Mr. Wolf? They were part of a family unit.” Wolf said “unaccompanied” was a legal term and then deflected. 
  • On speedy deportations without due process: Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) asked Wolf to explain why migrants who are placed in two expedited-deportation programs are not able to access legal counsel or connect with any legal-representation services. Wolf pushed back, saying the agency “makes sure” they have access to counsel and have “their due-process rights.” But as Sinema pointed out, the agency is rushing migrants through their initial asylum screenings and quickly deporting them: Out of more than 2,000 people in one of the programs, only 13 had legal representation, and only 18 of over 2,700 cases in another speedy deportation program had a legal representation. “So there’s clearly a lot of work that we have yet to do here,” Sinema said.

The Democratic pushback against Wolf’s confirmation has been intense. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, for example, called Wolf “an awful choice.” The Congressional Hispanic Caucus sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Ron Johnson, the Senate committee chairman, on Tuesday to note their “firm opposition” to his nomination, arguing Wolf’s tenure “proves he is unfit to serve” as DHS secretary. “His record shows a consistent failure to effectively manage the agency, a pattern of issuing inaccurate or misleading statement, and enacting some of the most disturbing immigration polices in our countries history.”

And Rep. Bennie Thomson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, also sent a letter to Johnson ahead of the hearing, expressing opposition to Wolf’s nomination. “I want to share my serious concerns regarding Mr. Wolf’s repeated failure to comply with Constitutional mandated oversight during this tenure” and “urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose his nomination.” 

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