Photo credit: www.govexec.com
Concerns Raised Over Triple Appointments at USAID and NARA
Democratic leaders from the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee have formally requested clarification regarding Marco Rubio’s unique appointment to three separate roles: Secretary of State, acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and acting archivist for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). This inquiry follows recent incidents involving the destruction of sensitive documents at USAID.
In a letter addressed to Secretary Rubio—who was confirmed as Secretary of State earlier this year before being appointed to his additional roles—Representatives Gerry Connolly of Virginia and Gregory Meeks of New York described the arrangement as “grossly inappropriate.” They pointed out that each of these agencies operates with its own statutory independence and distinct responsibilities.
“The archivist of the United States holds a critical role in managing federal records, which includes crafting policies for their preservation and administration,” they wrote. “Your dual role as acting archivist introduces a significant conflict of interest, undermining both the intent of the Federal Records Act and the integrity of NARA.”
This concern was amplified earlier in March when a memo issued to a limited number of USAID employees directed them to locate classified documents within the agency’s headquarters for destruction, employing shredders and burn bags in the process.
A lawsuit has since emerged, contesting efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle USAID. Unions within the agency and related non-profits sought a temporary restraining order amid fears about the impending destruction of important documents. After receiving assurances from the administration that the records in question were irrelevant to ongoing litigation—and that plaintiffs would be notified in advance about any document destruction—the organizations withdrew their motion.
However, lawmakers have expressed skepticism regarding the adequacy of these assurances, particularly due to perceived omissions in USAID’s court documents concerning these proceedings.
“In a March 12 court filing, Acting USAID Executive Secretary Erica Carr failed to clarify the full and complete scope of documents that were marked or destroyed during the March 11 disposal,” Connolly and Meeks pointed out. “Moreover, she did not provide evidence of an email supposedly sent to 34 staff members regarding the retention of classified documents that should meet retention requirements.”
The core issue is the painstakingly negotiated schedule between NARA and individual agencies that allows for the destruction of outdated documents. Should the appointees chosen by the Trump administration wish to alter this schedule, Rubio possesses the authority to sanction his own requests.
“For NARA to effectively function, it is vital to maintain a clear separation between its regulatory powers and those of the agencies it oversees, such as USAID and the State Department,” argued Connolly and Meeks. “Your overlapping roles not only create logistical confusion but also challenge ethical standards, ultimately eroding public trust in all three responsibilities that you are purportedly managing.”
In related developments, a federal judge recently sided with a group of anonymous current and former USAID employees, declaring that the influence exerted by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Governmental Efficiency likely breaches constitutional principles. Following this ruling, Peter Marocco, who had been acting as deputy USAID administrator, returned to the State Department. In his place, Jeremy Lewin, a known associate of the Department of Governmental Efficiency, stepped in as acting deputy.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang also dismissed the administration’s request to exempt Lewin from restrictions that prevent individuals associated with the present or past defendants from influencing USAID. “The criteria for individuals bound by the injunction were intentionally designed to include those most likely to engage in constitutional breaches, thereby preventing any attempts to circumvent the injunction through the reassignment of personnel,” Chuang noted. “Exempting Lewin would undermine this critical purpose.”
Source
www.govexec.com