Blakeman renews ex-Rep. Peter King's $8K a month, no-bid counterterrorism contract without legislative approval
The 81-year-old King, a former Republican congressman, was first hired in November 2023 as Blakeman's 'confidential adviser' on counterterrorism and homeland security, a role that has allowed him to collect up to $8,000 a month without a public vote or an open bidding process due to the sensitive nature of the post.
4 The 81-year-old King was first hired in November 2023 as Blakeman's (right) 'confidential adviser' on counterterrorism and homeland security.
Brigitte Stelzer
Advertisement
Records show Nassau has already shelled out $192,000 to King. And his contract, which was extended on Monday by the county executive, will now run through October.
'No-bid contracts for political insiders like Peter King are exactly why Long Islanders pay some of the highest taxes in the country,' county Legislator Seth Koslow, a Democrat who is running against Blakeman in November, told The Post. 'Bruce Blakeman is treating our wallets like an ATM for his friends.
'This so-called 'sensitive' legal work is just another excuse for a secret payout. While Nassau families are getting squeezed, the GOP machine is cashing in.'
Advertisement
4 A portrait of Seth Koslow, who is a candidate for Nassau County Executive.
Seth Koslow for County Executive
Blakeman called it 'ridiculous' that the Democrats were making an issue of the appointment.
He pointed to King's nearly three decades in Congress, where he chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, served on the Intelligence Committee and helped lead post-9/11 emergency preparedness efforts across New York state. He represented both Nassau and Suffolk counties while working on Capitol Hill.
'Congressman King held the highest security clearances in the federal government, military, and law enforcement, and has not only a wealth of knowledge but an extensive network of intelligence professionals that he has made available to Nassau County,' Blakeman said.
Advertisement
The investment, especially as Nassau cops are gearing up to assist ICE, is needed now more than ever, Blakeman said.
4 Peter King speaks at Bernie McGuirk's memorial at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan, NY on October 26, 2022.
J. Messerschmidt/NY Post
Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder also backed the hire, saying King is 'available 24/7' and regularly sits in on meetings with top law enforcement officials from local jurisdictions to the federal level. The ex-congressman has also been intimately involved in major security planning efforts, including last year's Cricket World Cup held at Eisenhower Park, according to Ryder.
However, the Dems told The Post Blakeman's move is less about safety and security and more about playing political favorites and doing so without transparency.
Advertisement
Blakeman used a narrow exemption to get King on the payroll that allows the county executive to hire outside legal counsel in 'highly sensitive' matters, county records show — a carveout Dems said opens the door to cronyism.
4 Dems told The Post Blakeman's move is less about safety and security and more about playing political favorites and doing so without transparency.
Paul Martinka
Since taking office, Blakeman has used the provision to dole out more than $500,000 in similar government contracts, including $250,000 to a law firm — previously used by President Trump — for legal advice on fighting Gov. Kathy Hochul's controversial affordable housing plan.
Most county contracts require a vote from a Nassau Legislature committee and must go through a competitive bidding process aimed at securing the lowest possible price for taxpayers.
Typically, only contracts under $1,000 can bypass bidding requirements — but King's deal wasn't brought before lawmakers or opened up to other vendors.
'Even if it's legal, it doesn't mean it's ethical or defensible,' said Koslow. 'Quite frankly, it's a handout.'
King's relationship with Blakeman dates back years. The two have appeared together at multiple events, including Blakeman's recent reelection kickoff and over the past 25 years, King and his committees have poured more than $1.1 million into local politics, including many donations to Blakeman and the Nassau GOP.
Advertisement
Since leaving office in 2021, King has worked as a lobbyist and consultant, but said he still maintains active ties with federal law enforcement and national security officials, spending several hours a week on county business.
'I'm not saying it needs to be me instead of someone else,' King told Newsday. 'But I think it's good to have somebody on the outside who can add a different dimension.'
Blakeman has not said whether he plans to extend King's contract beyond this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Indiana's Camp Atterbury to be used to house detained migrants
Indiana's Camp Atterbury and New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst will be temporarily used to detain undocumented migrants, according to a directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Hegseth announced the decision in a June 15 letter to Rep. Herb Conway (D-N.J.), the House Committee on Armed Services and other members of Congress outlining that both locations would be for 'temporary use by the Department of Homeland Security to house illegal aliens.' The news surfaced widely on Friday as Democrats publicly criticized the move. Hegseth in the letter also stated that this will not affect military activities in the camps. 'The Secretary approved a Department of Homeland Security request for assistance to use real property at Camp Atterbury, Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey to establish temporary soft-sided holding facilities,' an official from the Department of Defense (DOD) told The Hill in a statement. The letter did not provide any indication on how many migrants could be detained there, nor on when the camp would be open. 'The timeline for these facilities will depend on operational requirements and coordination with DHS,' wrote the DOD. 'Soft-sided holding facilities' mean that these camps will resemble Alligator Alcatraz, a detention facility the Trump administration has opened in the Florida Everglades, with tent-like walls and fencing inside to surround the beds. Earlier on Friday, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem suggested that Alligator Alcatraz would be a blue-print for future facilities. Governors of South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas told NewsNation that they would be ready to host these temporary facilities in their states. 'Texas will continue to assist the Trump administration in arresting, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants,' said Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesman for Gov. Greg Abbott (R). Camp Atterbury is 40 miles out of Indianapolis, is operated by the National Guard and is more than 34,000 acres, according to their website. Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst is near Trenton, New Jersey and about 42,000 acres. Indiana Rep. Andre Carson (D) wrote in a statement, 'I remain concerned on this use of Camp Atterbury given the deplorable and inhumane conditions at other ICE detention facilities nationwide. The number of ICE detainees – and the number of deaths in detention – have grown at alarmingly high rates since the start of President Trump's term, which in unacceptable. Also unacceptable is the apprehension and detention of US citizens. The Hoosier state should not facilitate these unlawful actions.' A group of New Jersey Democrats also condemned the DOD's plan. 'This is an inappropriate use of our national defense system and militarizes a radical immigration policy that has resulted in inhumane treatment of undocumented immigrants and unlawful deportations of U.S. citizens, including children, across the country,' they said. This move by the administration continues mass deportation efforts. This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that they would have access to Medicaid data from 79 million people, including addresses and dates of birth, to facilitate finding undocumented migrants.
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress passed Trump's spending cuts. What does that mean for their power of the purse?
A drama-filled week in DC saw Democrats accuse Republicans ceding Congress' power to Trump and a curveball involving Jeffrey Epstein. WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump is racking up legislative wins with the help of a Republican-controlled Congress. Not without a touch of drama and complaining, though. Republicans in the House and Senate this week approved $9 billion worth of spending cuts, targeted at public broadcasting and foreign aid programs, sending the bill on to Trump's desk for his signature into law. Made at Trump's request, the canceling of federal funding represents just a slice of the almost $200 billion the Department of Government Efficiency, once spearheaded by Elon Musk, claims to have cut from the federal budget. More: Rural PBS stations could bear brunt of public media cuts. Just ask those in Kansas Still, agencies like the World Health Organization and U.S. Agency for International Development, who use federal grants to support things like global health initiatives and peacekeeping efforts, will feel the impacts. The cuts could also be a potential death knell for local PBS and NPR stations across the country, who rely heavily on government funds to keep the lights on and the public in the know. For Trump, the legislative victory represents an unusual ceding of authority from one branch of the U.S. government to another, as Congress typically tightly guards its Constitutionally-given power of the purse rather than taking the lead from the White House. Adding to the intrigue: Republican leadership faced a big challenge in trying to advance the Trump-requested package of spending cuts while dealing with an unrelated series of other topics − namely Jeffrey Epstein − that cast a shadow over everything on Capitol Hill. Here are three key takeaways from this rare congressional scene. Pickpocketing the power of the purse Congress previously approved the specific spending totals that they just clawed back in a bill that Trump signed into law in March. The decision to then revoke $9 billion (a relatively small amount in the scope of the $1.6 trillion federal budget) is rare and unusual. The last time the legislative branch made such a move was in 1999, when Democratic President Bill Clinton was nearing the end of his second term. More: Lawmakers warn Trump he can't 'pick and choose' what to spend from funding bill The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, a privilege and responsibility its elected lawmakers protect fiercely. Democrats have accused their Republican colleagues of ceding that power to the president with measures like the recent spending cuts, as well as a sweeping tax, spending and policy bill passed earlier in July at Trump's urging. They also see it as a winning issue on the campaign trail next year. 'This is absolutely going to frame the 2026 election,' Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, told USA TODAY earlier this month. 'They have decided to cave in completely to Donald Trump and the wishes of the billionaire class. More: Dismantling agencies and firing workers: How Trump is redefining relations with Congress and courts Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, defended the move in an interview with Politico. "The rescissions process," he said, referring to the action taken this week, "actually considers the legislature's role in what the executive branch is identifying as waste, fraud and abuse, and that's what we're doing right now." How Jeffrey Epstein factored into debate An entirely unrelated debate threatened to derail the process of the House approving the spending cuts. Lawmakers were facing a July 18 midnight deadline to see the rescissions legislation pass through Congress, otherwise the federal funding would need to be spent as mandated by law. But moving quickly became a challenge as Trump and his MAGA base started sparring over the Justice Department's Epstein case file review, a fight that spilled into the halls of Congress and took Republicans' attention away from the impending spending vote. With the deadline fast approaching, a key House committee eventually came to an agreement to placate its Republican members, at least for the time being, without angering Trump, who has asked his supporters to move on from the heated issue. House Republicans crafted a non-binding resolution, meaning if passed Trump and his administration would not be required to comply, calling for the release of files related to Epstein's case. GOP leadership has not indicated when or if this resolution would come up for a vote on the House floor. More spending fights to come Trump and the GOP can expect more headaches as Congress tackles additional spending debates before year's end. Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought suggested midweek there may be more spending cuts to come. "There is still a great enthusiasm" for these bills, Vought said at a July 17 event. Speaking to reporters on July 18, deputy White House chief of staff James Blair said some of the items in the White House sights include "everything that just doesn't come aboard with the president's agenda, that doesn't make sense, really just taxpayer waste." But even Republican senators, already weary from this week's process, have warned that they would want the White House to provide much more detail in any future proposals. "I hope this is just a warm up for what should be tens of billions of dollars worth of rescissions," Thom Tillis said July 15, before the Senate vote. "I think we need to get it right." There is also the looming prospect of a government shutdown, if Congress does not act in time to pass its annual appropriations bills before a September 30 deadline. With both chambers out for recess through August, Republicans have less than six weeks to make it happen. It will require bipartisan support, a daunting task given partisan tension that were only heightened by the recent spending cut process and ongoing complaints against passing a continuing resolution as the alternative.
Atlantic
11 minutes ago
- Atlantic
A Congress That Votes Yes and Hopes No
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In fall 1963, as President Lyndon B. Johnson struggled to pass the Civil Rights Act, some allies warned him that the success wouldn't be worth the electoral hit he'd take. Johnson was insistent that the point of winning elections was to push the policies he wanted. 'Well, what the hell's the presidency for?' he said. No one would have to ask President Donald Trump that question. His vision of power is dangerous but clear, and he's wasted little time in implementing it. One reason he's been so successful is that members of the House and Senate seem to have no idea what the hell the Congress is for. The past few weeks have seen Republican members of Congress wringing their hands furiously over bills under consideration, criticizing the White House's legislative priorities … and then voting for them. The most torturous, and tortuous, example is Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a prominent member of the supposedly populist wing of MAGA Republicans. On June 28, Hawley criticized Medicaid cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the form of work requirements. 'If you want to be a working-class party, you've got to deliver for working-class people,' he said. 'You cannot take away health care from working people.' Three days later, on July 1, he voted for a bill that did exactly that. It also cut funding to rural hospitals, and yet, a few days later, he told NBC News, 'I think that if Republicans don't come out strong and say we're going to protect rural hospitals, then, yeah, I think voters aren't going to like that.' This week, he introduced a bill to roll back some of the Medicaid cuts he'd voted for two weeks earlier. If Hawley didn't like the cuts, he could have voted to stop them. I don't mean that symbolically: The bill passed 51–50, with Vice President J. D. Vance breaking the tie. By withholding his vote, Hawley could have killed the bill or forced changes. This is how legislating is supposed to work. But in his defense, Hawley has terrible role models: He's a relatively young senator surrounded by elders who seem just as confused about their role. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted for the OBBBA too, and then told reporters that she hoped that the bill she had just voted for would not be enacted as written, pleading with the House to do her job for her by altering it. (The House didn't.) Years ago, my colleague Ashley Parker, then at The New York Times, identified the existence of a Republican ' Vote No/Hope Yes Caucus.' Murkowski is perhaps the spiritual founder of a Vote Yes/Hope No Caucus. She has plenty of company. Her comrades were out in force for this week's vote on rescissions, retroactive budget cuts requested by the White House and approved by Congress. Some members worry that acceding to the rescissions is effectively surrendering the power of the purse to the executive branch. 'I don't have any problem with reducing spending. We're talking about not knowing,' complained Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, the former Senate majority leader. 'They would like a blank check, is what they would like. And I don't think that's appropriate. I think they ought to make the case.' McConnell voted for the bill. 'I suspect we're going to find out there are some things that we're going to regret,' North Carolina's Thom Tillis, ostensibly freed up by his decision not to run for reelection, said on Wednesday. If only there were some way to avoid that! But Tillis voted yes, because he said he'd been assured by the White House that certain programs wouldn't be cut. It should be clear by now that the administration's promises to senators aren't worth the red cent that Trump is eliminating; regardless, the way to ensure that something happens is to write it into law. Isn't that what we send legislators to Washington to do? Apparently not. Also this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune paused a bill to levy sanctions against Russia, deferring to Trump, who has threatened to impose tariffs on Moscow. 'It sounds like right now the president is going to attempt to do some of this on his own,' he said. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise concurred: 'If anybody's going to be able to get Putin to the table to finally agree to peace, it's President Trump.' Never mind that the Constitution places the tariff power primarily with Congress. Trump's executive-power grab, I've argued here and in my recent book, is the product of careful planning laid out in Project 2025, whose authors make a case for how and why the president should seize new authorities. In Project 2025's main document, Kevin D. Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, attacks 'Congress's preening cowardice' in refusing to exercise its duties and leaving them to the presidency. Project 2025's paradoxical response is for the executive to seize even more power. That has worked because members of Congress are—unlike LBJ—afraid to take votes that might create some sort of political backlash. They might pay the price anyway. 'In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsibility for its actions,' Roberts writes. That trick works for only so long. Trump never has to face voters again, but having passed up the chance to set their own agenda, many members of Congress will have to answer for his decisions in next year's midterms. After the longest vote in House history this week, Speaker Mike Johnson—no relation genealogically, ideologically, or stylistically to Lyndon—lamented the state of affairs in the legislature. 'I am tired of making history; I just want normal Congress,' he said. 'But some people have forgotten what that looks like.' It's a shame that Johnson doesn't know anyone who has the power to change the way things work at the Capitol. Today's News President Donald Trump asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to unseal grand-jury testimony from the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes. An explosion at a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department training facility killed at least three deputies, according to department officials. The House gave final approval to Trump's request to cut $9 billion from public-broadcasting funding and foreign aid. Trump is expected to sign the bill into law. Dispatches The Books Briefing: Emma Sarappo on what Andrea Gibson understood about very simple poetry. Evening Read What to Do With the Most Dangerous Book in America By James Shapiro The novel had once served as a deadly template for domestic terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh, who drew from its pages when he planned the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, and Robert Jay Mathews, whose white-supremacist gang took its name, the Order, from the novel; a member of the Order killed the Jewish radio host Alan Berg. I also knew that it had inspired John William King, part of a group that dragged James Byrd Jr., a Black man, to death behind a pickup truck. As King shackled Byrd to the vehicle, he was reported to have said, 'We're going to start The Turner Diaries early.' The book is a vile, racist fantasy culminating in genocide, but it isn't just a how-to manual for homegrown terrorists. What has been labeled the 'bible of the racist right' has influenced American culture in a way only fiction can—by harnessing the force of storytelling to popularize ideas that have never been countenanced before. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Watch. Eddington (out now in theaters) is a nasty, cynical, and eerily accurate look at all-too-recent history, Shirley Li writes. 'The summer I was twelve I don't remember / Thirteen we drive the Continent, hit Chamonix / The summer I'm fourteen go back alone to Čechy'
