Missouri Democrats ponder options after Senate breaks down over abortion, paid sick leave
State Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, prepares for Senate Republicans to force a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban abortion on May 14 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).
On the evening of May 14, when the House side of the Missouri legislature was almost a ghost town, state Rep. Mark Sharp's phone started buzzing with messages telling him that 'things are getting ready to blow up in the Senate.'
Sharp, a Kansas City Democrat, started making his way to the Senate when he heard chanting. Protesters were in the Senate expressing their opposition to HJR 73, which would put an abortion ban on the 2026 ballot.
After visitors were cleared out to stop the protest, security began to let people back in, and Sharp and dozens of other representatives crammed into the spaces along the edge of the Senate floor to watch what would happen next.
'You had about 50 reps on the Senate floor … maybe 20 Democrats and another 30 Republicans all mixed together. All kinds of camera crews. I've never seen the Senate that packed before,' Sharp said.
'Then, they moved for the previous question, and then did it again on Prop A,' he added. 'Then they adjourned. I was literally stunned.'
After a session considered uncharacteristically productive and bipartisan by recent standards, the Missouri Senate, on the second-to-last day of the 2025 session, broke with its own longstanding tradition and overrode a filibuster.
To do it, Senate Republicans pulled out a rarely used procedural tool called a 'previous question,' or PQ, to close debate and force votes on the abortion bill and a bill to repeal paid sick leave protections.
Senate Republicans' use of the PQ shocked the Missouri legislature for a number of reasons, one being that the tool is very rarely used, because it's seen as antithetical to the chamber's tradition of unlimited debate.
The other is that the move came after a session in which Republicans and Democrats, despite their disagreements, were able to find some common ground and collaborate on legislation.
Republicans have held a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of the Missouri legislature since 2012. This year, Democrats held 10 of 34 Senate seats and 52 of 161 House seats.
Even so, this session was marked by considerable bipartisan cooperation — a stark contrast from previous years, when Republican infighting dominated the Senate and made it difficult to get much of anything to the governor's desk.
While extreme political polarization nationally might make bipartisan cooperation seem impossible, it's a requirement in the Missouri legislature if Democrats want to get anything done, said state Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat.
'I would not be successful as a legislator if I worked in a silo or if I worked on purely hyperpartisan issues. That's not going to get me anywhere as a Democrat in the superminority of Missouri,' she said. 'It all comes down to me finding common ground with others.'
Sharp said: 'As a member of the superminority, we have to constantly, constantly be talking to these folks in the majority party daily. They're the ones controlling everything.'
Republican House leadership — including House Speaker Jon Patterson of Lee's Summit, Majority Floor Leader Alex Riley of Springfield and committee chairs — have control over every step in the legislative process, including whether a bill is introduced and referred to a committee.
Because of that, 'at every corner, we should be working across the aisle to make sure that these bipartisan pieces of legislation are given a chance … because we know the partisan ones won't,' Sharp said.
He said 'it can be frustrating' to be a Democrat working in the Republican supermajority-controlled Missouri legislature, but 'you've got to have a short memory.'
Despite being in the supermajority, many Republicans were 'absolutely' interested in working with Democrats, Nurrenbern said.
One of those Republicans was Sen. Kurtis Gregory from Marshall. He and Nurrenbern together represent Clay County in the Senate, and 'as soon as we were both elected, we sat down and talked about what we could do together to move Clay County forward,' she said.
When Nurrenbern decided to file a bill to create a Clay County Sports Authority, she reached out to him and said, 'I would like you to champion this with me.'
'He was an absolutely great supporter every step of the way to get that done,' she said. 'He was … excited to carry that legislation with me.'
But the collaboration wasn't just one-way, Nurrenbern said. Sen. Mike Henderson, a Desloge Republican, also asked for her input on a massive education bill he was working on.
'He came to me right away and said: 'Maggie, I'd really like your input on this. You're a former educator. I respect your opinion on these provisions, and I want to work with you on this,'' Nurrenbern said.
State Sen. Tracy McCreery, an Olivette Democrat, cosponsored several bipartisan bills this session and said it was 'refreshing' to work across the aisle.
'I'm in a district that's 50/50, and I feel like my constituents want me to work together with people of all political stripes and all backgrounds to find common-sense solutions,' McCreery said. 'They appreciate that politicians aren't fighting all the time and calling each other names.'
While some issues consistently divide Republicans and Democrats in the Missouri legislature, others offer more opportunities for bipartisan cooperation, such as economic development and health care.
'All of the things I worked on successfully with colleagues from the other side of the aisle are just issues that are going to help make people's lives a little bit better,' McCreery said.
For Democrats in both chambers of the Missouri legislature, getting a policy over the finish line often means amending another bill to include their language. It's especially critical in the House, Sharp said.
'Freshman Democrats feel like their specific House bills should be moving. That's now how it works. … Republicans aren't going to pass a bill in your name,' Sharp said.
McCreery said it's 'pretty common' for Senate Democrats, when they're unable to block the passage of a bill, to try getting some of their own bills added as amendments to soften the impact.
'Once the supermajority decides that a bill is going to move and make it out of the chamber, you, as a senator, have to decide. Do I want to try to stop it, or do I want to try to make a bad bill a little less bad by putting some good things on it?' McCreery said.
McCreery said one example was a 'terrible' omnibus utility law that passed early in the session, which she said will increase Missourians' utility rates.
'I voted no on it, but I was able to get some consumer protections in there for low-income people,' she added. 'It was a tough decision, but I didn't have the ability to stop the bill, so then I had to make a decision to try to put some things in there that can make it a little less harmful to people.'
Nurrenbern said she tries to remember 'that we, as Senate Democrats, are just 10 of 34 senators' and that 'while we should have a mark on the legislation that is passed, it is going to be not as large a mark as the Republican supermajority.'
'I don't think a single piece of legislation got across the finish line without Democratic input,' she added. 'But we also recognize that we're not going to be overdemanding or overbearing in our asks. The asks that we put forward are reasonable, I think, and are really in the spirit of serving Missouri well.'
Sharp said that unlike in previous years, House leadership — and especially Patterson, who just completed his first session as speaker — was more open to keeping an open dialogue with Democrats.
'I will give House Speaker Patterson this: he did a very good job of working with Democrats, (and) particularly African-American Democrats in Kansas City,' Sharp said. 'He made time for us regularly in Jefferson City and in Kansas City.'
That shift meant that 'a few more opportunities were thrown to members of my caucus,' Sharp said, with Patterson and various Republican committee chairs being more willing to help some of Democrats' bills move through the legislative process.
Those opportunities meant that Democrats, including freshmen, were able to add their bills' language as amendments to Republican legislation, including bills banning hair discrimination in schools, extending a tax credit for donations to diaper banks and eliminating sales taxes on diapers and feminine hygiene products.
But other House bills with bipartisan support were casualties of the Senate's breakdown. That included Sharp's bill requiring some people with DUIs to install ignition interlocks in their car, which he said was on the Senate agenda but was effectively 'killed' when the PQ was used.
With the use of the PQs, 'all of that bipartisan cooperation and collaboration was pretty much thrown out the window,' according to McCreery.
At the time, Republicans and Democrats had been negotiating to find a compromise on Republicans' bill to repeal Proposition A's paid sick leave protections, passed by voters last fall.
'We were working right up to when we were given word that negotiations were finished,' McCreery said. 'I went into that Wednesday still feeling hopeful that we would figure something out.'
According to the Missouri Independent, Democrats told Republican leadership they would stop filibustering the two bills if language were changed to remove references to gender-affirming care for minors — which is already illegal in Missouri — from the abortion bill and to allow for minimum wage to rise with inflation.
McCreery — who was leading the filibuster when the PQs were used — said 'the PQ may have been used against me, but it's bigger than me.'
'Shutting down the debate was done against the will of the people. And that's what makes this more harmful and harder to look the other way on, because the PQ was used on me, but shutting down debate was used against 1.5, 1.6 million Missourians that voted for Prop A or voted for Amendment 3,' she said.
That move 'eroded my trust and confidence to negotiate in good faith with Republican senators,' Nurrenbern said.
While Democrats said negotiators were on track to find a solution, Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican from Defiance, said on the day of the PQ that 'goalposts were being moved' in those negotiations, which ultimately 'hit a logjam.'
Gov. Mike Kehoe was working behind the scenes in the lead-up to the PQ to try to prevent it and improve the chances of the Missouri legislature passing his proposed stadium funding plan, according to the Missouri Independent.
In the lead-up to the PQ, Nurrenbern and other Democrats said that while they enjoyed the bipartisan cooperation, 'That is not going to be the case next session.'
'It marked a change in how we are going to operate as senators,' Nurrenbern said. 'There are a lot of motions that happen throughout the legislative day in the Missouri Senate, and we are going to use every opportunity to make our point that it's paramount to negotiate in good faith.'
McCreery said she didn't want to speculate about how Democrats might proceed, but did say that 'it's going to be much harder to get things done, even things that are perceived as nonpartisan or noncontroversial. There was a lot of harm done not just to this session, but future sessions as well.'
'I'm certainly disappointed with how session ended this year, and I have a long memory,' she added. 'I don't anticipate that I'll go into special session this summer or regular session next January with all of this disrespect just put behind me.'
Gov. Mike Kehoe recently announced that he will call lawmakers back to Jefferson City for a special session sometime this summer to vote on a bill to provide state funding for a new Royals stadium and a renovated Chiefs stadium.
Nurrenbern said she doesn't know 'what the call is for special session yet, but I would certainly expect to see some of that spill over.'
McCreery said Democrats 'have not had any discussions' about the special session.
'I will say, as someone who is a proud resident of the St. Louis region, to see all of the destruction that happened on Friday night with the tornado, it's going to be really hard to think about giving $900 million or more to a wealthy team owner when we've got so much destruction in the St. Louis region that is going to have to be dealt with,' she said.
Sharp — who has been a vocal advocate for finding a way to keep the Royals and Chiefs in Missouri — said an even bigger barrier to getting the stadium bill passed will be senators' lingering resentment over the House failing to pass a massive construction bill.
However, he said he's optimistic that House leadership will put it up for a vote during the special session to clear the way for the Senate to pass the stadium bill.
At a press conference after the end of session, Kehoe told reporters he understands lawmakers' concerns about the construction bill.
'I've heard and listened to quite a few senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle on that very same issue, and I understand what their concerns are,' Kehoe said. 'I think it's fair to say everything is on the table of what that special session might look like.'
As Democrats prepare for the sessions to come, Nurrenbern said she hopes to see bipartisanship in the Missouri legislature again.
'Everybody comes from a different walk of life, from a different area of the state, and we work best — and the institution works best — when we come together for the common good,' she said. 'I hope we get back there sooner than later.'
This article first appeared on Beacon: Missouri and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Some Dems Warn Colleagues: Crypto Bill Could Inject Some 19th Century Chaos Into US Economy
The Senate is poised to pass the GENIUS Act in the coming weeks. The bill will bestow upon the crypto industry a long-sought blessing: a key form of the digital currency, stablecoins, will now be subject to a bespoke (and notably light-touch) regulatory system created by Congress. With it will come the U.S. government's stamp of approval. After years spent being dismissed as a haven for money launderers and speculators, the bill is in part a marker that the crypto industry has arrived in Washington. And yet, there are a few problems. The bill could open multiple pathways toward contagion that could spread throughout the financial system, Hill staffers and experts familiar with the legislation warn TPM. Some argue that it would create a financial system that operates with many of the same risks the U.S. left behind in the 20th century, including banks and private companies issuing their own, alternate currencies; others regard the bill as priming the country for a series of runs on digital currencies. Among legislators, the fighting over the proper level alarm about these possible eventualities has been most acute among Senate Democrats. While nearly the entire Republican Senate conference supports the bill, a few Senate Dems have broken off to lead negotiations over the legislation and persuade others in their party to support it. Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) was the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill; others, including Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), have taken the lead in pushing it. Stablecoins, the form of crypto that the GENIUS Act addresses, are cryptocurrencies that are pegged to the value of a state-issued currency, like the dollar. Crypto advocates tout stablecoins as solving a few problems: consumers can use their stability to buy other forms of cryptocurrency; they can also, advocates say, double as a means to quickly transfer payments between people. In that sense, they're kind of like Venmo, only based in the blockchain and, often, possessing perplexing foreign ties. (One of the biggest stablecoins, Tether, is run from El Salvador.) It's that quality that causes anxiety among many experts in banking and financial regulation, including Democratic staffers on the Senate Banking Committee. Stablecoins, under the GENIUS Act, will receive the benefits that the U.S. legal system gives to deposits, but without most of the qualities that make that system secure. 'The GENIUS Act folds stablecoins directly into the traditional financial system, while applying weaker safeguards than banks or investment companies must adhere to,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in a speech last month. Under the bill, there's no deposit insurance to guarantee stablecoin holdings. But more troubling than that, for critics, is the limited regulation of how stablecoin issuers can use the money they receive and how, in the event of a crisis, customers would be made whole. New kinds of businesses will be able to issue stablecoins under the legislation, including banks (typically via subsidiaries) and tech megafirms like Meta, X, Amazon, and others. The risk, experts told TPM, partly stems from how stablecoin issuers would meet a run on their coins. Stablecoins are typically backed up by bank deposits or investments in treasuries; customers pulling their stablecoin deposits at once could resemble an old-school bank run, depleting these assets. 'It would be a financial crisis grease fire,' one Senate staffer told TPM about the possibility. Under this scenario, even people who don't hold crypto investments could be affected. A bank that holds a large amount of stablecoin deposits, when faced with mass withdrawals to shore up one or multiple failing stablecoins, could see its balance sheet falter. The same thing could happen if treasury securities or other backing assets are sold en masse, causing prices to plummet. Mark Hays, who covers cryptocurrency issues for American for Financial Reform, told TPM last month that banks themselves might be exposed in another way. Bank subsidiaries that issue stablecoins could experience a run, meaning that the parent bank would have to bail it out. These are all means by which risks inherent to the form of cryptocurrency might spread. 'The more banks get exposed to that, the more the fallout could be significant,' Hays said. Many critics of the GENIUS Act say that features of the bill will revive the problems that America's financial system experienced in the 19th century. There's an irony here. Some of Trump II's staunchest backers, particularly those on the new tech right, frame their support for the president as part of an effort to return to the 1890s. Trump himself has supposedly become enamored with President William McKinley; some supporters speak about going further than undoing the social changes of the 1960s or the New Deal, and instead call to undo the changes brought by the Progressive Era. That includes the federal reserve, income tax, and many early banking regulations. Of course, in the case of cryptocurrency, this effort to turn back the clock skips right past a key point of the push for legislation. The GENIUS Act, some observers say, could prompt mass adoption of the coins. That, in the event of a crisis, could prompt the Federal Reserve to bail out issuers — a decidedly post-1890s backstop. But one feature of the bill would turn time back: it would allow banks and some businesses to issue their own stablecoins. This hasn't escaped the attention of analysts at JP Morgan; strategists at the bank reportedly noted in a letter to clients that such a system would recall that of 'the 19th century, when various types of banknotes were valued differently.' For big tech firms, stablecoins present an opportunity: users could pay for purchases entirely within an app. Companies with operations around the world could unify transactions under one, in-house coin; they could also charge small transaction fees on each purchase that would open up a new way of making money. Hilary Allen, an American University professor who studies financial regulation, told TPM that the problem, again, would be that these are not actual bank deposits: they are lightly regulated cryptocurrencies. 'People will quite happily leave all their money in an app offered by a big tech platform,' she said. The scale of the risk to the financial system all depends on how many people adopt the use of stablecoins. Relatively few people use cryptocurrencies, though industry boosters argue that passing the GENIUS Act and market structure legislation later this summer will spur more people to do so. Big tech firms issuing their own coins as a means to buy products sold by the firms would also prompt more people to join. But even that, Allen said, could raise troubling questions about how it affects the nature of these businesses. 'Do they become too-big-to-fail financial institutions with all the power and the implicit bailouts that come with that?' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘It is a whole different environment': Republicans revisit key Biden investigations with new momentum
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to interview former Hunter Biden special counsel David Weiss behind closed doors on Friday, two sources familiar with the interview told CNN, as part of a broader Republican effort to revisit previous probes into the Biden family that stalled last Congress but are gaining new momentum now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. The scheduled interview, which could still be moved, would be the second time the Republican-led panel will interview Weiss about his work as Republicans continue to probe whether the investigation was hampered by political interference. Weiss has still never testified publicly about his six-year criminal probe into the president's son, which included three convictions, but was ultimately short-circuited as a result of the former president's unconditional pardon of his son. House Judiciary Republicans have long wanted to call Weiss, the Trump-appointed US attorney, back for questioning after his first closed-door interview in 2023. Committee Republicans were also able to finally secure interviews with two Department of Justice tax division prosecutors involved in the Hunter Biden probe who they had been aggressively pursuing for months, one of the sources familiar told CNN. The Justice Department is working with Weiss to provide access to documents he may need for his interview, a person briefed on the matter said. Any delays in getting access to documents would be a scheduling issue and the ability to have personnel who can oversee it, the person briefed on the matter said. It's not the only Biden investigation Republicans are reexamining that leans into a fresh political appetite with GOP control of Washington. House Oversight Chair James Comer is returning to his probe of the former president's mental fitness in an entirely new landscape after a recent book by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson put Joe Biden's physical and mental decline back in the spotlight. Comer told CNN he is in the process of scheduling key interviews with Biden's White House physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, and other senior aides who had all rebuffed his efforts last Congress. Beyond the five initial interviews from Biden's orbit, the Republican Chairman told CNN he wants to look at the executive orders Biden signed in his last six months in office and use of the autopen. In the weeks immediately after Biden's disastrous 2024 debate performance that unraveled his presidential campaign and upended the Democratic party, Comer requested to interview Biden's doctor and subpoenaed three senior Biden aides to discuss their roles in the Biden White House, which never materialized. Now, Comer said in an interview with CNN, 'it is a whole different environment.' At the time of his 2024 interview requests, Comer's impeachment inquiry into the Biden family's business dealings had fallen apart and the Biden administration felt no incentive to comply with the House Oversight Committee. Probing Biden's decline now, Comer says, will be a lot easier than trying to convince his colleagues of an alleged Biden family foreign influence peddling scheme, which even Comer conceded was difficult to do, particularly in a minute or less on Fox News. Republicans failed to uncover evidence to support their core allegations against the president, and lacked the votes in their divided, narrow majority last Congress to impeach the president. 'The money laundering and the shell companies, the average American couldn't understand that. I mean, that was hard to understand,' Comer told CNN. 'You know, I did not do a good job explaining that.' But with his investigation into Biden's mental and physical decline, Comer said, 'people see a president that clearly is in decline. They saw it in the debate.' Democrats sought to dismantle the Republican-led 11 month impeachment inquiry into Biden last Congress at every turn. Comer told CNN that although those Democrats aren't jumping at the opportunity to cooperate now, he does not see them as being obstructive either. 'I take that as a step in the right direction,' he told CNN. Tapper and Thompson's book documents how Biden, his closest aides and his family forged ahead with the former president's doomed 2024 reelection bid despite signs of his physical and mental decline. In a previous statement to CNN, a Biden spokesman criticized the book, saying that evidence shows that 'he was a very effective president.' Former Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips, who launched a long-shot challenge to Biden and was outspoken about his concerns over the former president's age, told CNN he did not think there needed to be an investigation on Capitol Hill at this point into Biden's fitness as president. 'This case already went to trial, the jury of American voters convicted the party of the accused, and handed out the harshest political punishment possible-losing the single most consequential election in modern history,' Phillips told CNN. Instead, Phillips called on Biden to authorize his physician to disclose his health file and condition under oath. 'Only if the former president refuses, or if questioning uncovers possible criminal activity, should an investigation be initiated,' Phillips added. Biden was recently diagnosed with an 'aggressive form' of prostate cancer. CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Internal Docs Raise Questions About Trump IRS Pick Billy Long's ‘No-Show Jobs' And ‘Strange' Schedule Inside A Powerful Agency
It's not quite clear what is happening with former Missouri Congressman Billy Long and his associates at the federal Office of Personnel Management, where he has been a senior advisor to the director since March. And Long's internal OPM calendar, which was obtained and reviewed by TPM, doesn't exactly shed light on the situation. In fact, multiple former OPM employees who discussed the matter with us said Long's schedule — which shows him averaging less than three items per week over the past three months — only adds to the questions about his workload and whether he is complying with recordkeeping requirements. In a statement to TPM, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who is the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, suggested the calendar data from OPM indicates Long and some of his associates were taking advantage of the agency, which plays a crucial part in the federal bureaucracy. 'If you ask me, it sure looks like Congressman Long got himself and some pals no-show jobs with maxed-out federal salaries,' Wyden said, adding, 'Somebody who abuses taxpayer dollars like that shouldn't come within 100 miles of the IRS.' Long and an OPM spokesperson did not respond to detailed questions from TPM about his schedule and role at the agency. OPM, which essentially serves as the chief human resources office and personnel policy manager for the federal government, is not the most high profile agency, but it is an influential one. During the second Trump administration, it has played a particularly central role, working closely with the Department of Government Efficiency — the initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk — to slash the federal workforce. Even as his current job is raising eyebrows, Long is on his way to taking a more powerful post. On Tuesday, members of the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-13 along party lines to advance Long's nomination to become commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. That sets the stage for a Senate floor vote that could end in Long's confirmation. President Trump announced his intention to have Long lead the tax agency on Dec. 4, 2024. Long, who represented Missouri's Seventh Congressional District from 2011 until 2023, previously pushed to abolish the IRS and earned a reputation as a staunch Trump loyalist. As TPM has previously reported, Long was one of the members of Congress who promoted bogus conspiracy theories in texts with Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, during the president's fight to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. In the announcement about the nomination, which came before Trump took office for his second term, the president boasted of Long's past work as an auctioneer and described him as the 'consummate 'people person.'' Since then, Long has been installed at OPM as his nomination has worked its way through the Senate. In that time, various controversies have erupted around his nomination to lead the IRS. These include questions about Long's tax credentials, which seem to come from a Florida business that offers a three-day seminar, and about his past private-sector work promoting a non-existent tax credit as well as another credit that has been described as 'riddled with fraud.' And, in recent weeks, Long's stint at the OPM has added to those concerns. On May 23, shortly after Long appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, members provided him with additional written questions for the record. Wyden, who cited the internal OPM calendars, took the opportunity to ask Long about the work that he and three associates — Ben Elleson, Karen Meads, and Mark Czuchry — are doing at OPM. According to Wyden, Long's in-person answer about the role that he and his associates play at the agency left much to be desired. 'If Congressman Long and his associates had real jobs doing serious work at OPM they'd have proven it to us when we gave him the opportunity,' Wyden said. 'The best he could do when staff questioned him on this was to read aloud a printout of a random press release and garble a few brief answers about proofreading and retirement issues, and it wasn't believable at all.' In his written questions to Long, Wyden claimed that both Long and Elleson, who was previously deputy chief of staff and legislative director in Long's House office, were both earning $195,200, which is the maximum salary for a federal worker in Washington D.C. Wyden also referenced the calendars as he asked Long, 'How many hours per week do you work?' Long's response did not directly answer that question or several others that were asked by the senator about his specific accomplishments and schedule. Instead, Long offered a terse three sentence reply. 'As a Senior Advisor at OPM, I work with the Acting Administrator in modernizing and digitizing the federal government retirement system,' Long wrote. 'This includes identifying improvements and discussing options to better serve federal employees. I work at OPM in the Washington, D.C. headquarters.' TPM obtained and reviewed internal OPM calendars that were provided by a source involved in Long's confirmation. They show Long had a total of 34 items on his schedule during March, April, and May, a period that included thirteen weeks and 64 working days. The calendars did not detail the appointments on Long's schedule, but none appeared to last a full day. And many of the items on Long's calendar may not have been work at all. Eleven of them were identified as 'tentative,' rather than scheduled commitments, and one of the blocked off periods was explicitly listed as 'free.' Long's associates at the agency had similarly open schedules. The calendars show Elleson, whose title at OPM is reportedly 'senior adviser,' had 65 items scheduled, an average of slightly more than one thing per day for the three-month period. Of these, eight were listed as 'tentative' and three were identified as 'free.' According to Wyden's questions for the record, Meads, who spent a dozen years serving as the scheduler in Long's district office, is earning a salary of $175,000. Her OPM calendar shows just six items for all of March and April. Everything on Meads' schedule during that two month period was identified as either 'tentative' or 'free.' Meads' calendar for the month of May was completely empty. In his written responses to Wyden, Long defended the work of both of his associates while providing few details. 'Mr. Elleson is a trusted and respected employee with years of experience. He was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures,' Long wrote, later adding, 'Ms. Meads is a seasoned employee with extensive government experience. She was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures.' Elleson and Meads did not respond to requests for comment from TPM. A former senior OPM staffer who left the agency prior to Trump's second term and requested anonymity to avoid retaliation said the lack of activity on these calendars is unusual. 'I can't imagine a day that I had less than six or seven meetings when I was at OPM — or more — that were back to back. That's especially true for senior directors,' the former senior staffer said. The ex-staffer went on to point out that DOGE, the so-called government efficiency agency, has extensively focused on OPM and placed personnel inside the agency. One of the items highlighted by DOGE as part of efforts to eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is a decommissioned mine in Pennsylvania that OPM has used to warehouse retirement records. Because many of the retirement functions that Long has suggested he is focused on are based there rather than in D.C., the former staffer suggested his work should include an abundance of online meetings that would crop up on the calendar. 'As DOGE mocked or made clear, retirement services is based in a mine in Pennsylvania, so your work cannot be done in person,' the former staffer said. Obviously, it is possible that Long and his associates are simply not inputting all of their activity on the internal calendar system. However, the former senior staffer suggested this would raise other issues since federal recordkeeping requirements call for detailed tracking. Long's third associate at OPM, Mark Czuchry, brings up a whole host of other issues unrelated to workload and bookkeeping. Czuchry is a Minnesota lawyer and partner at the financial firm Lifetime Advisors, which employed Long after he left Congress in 2023. Czuchry, a member of his family, and other employees at Lifetime Advisors were among a group of donors who provided Long with an influx of campaign donations after Trump announced his nomination. Long used that cash to reimburse himself for a personal loan he had made to the failed Senate bid that led him to abandon his House seat. And, last month, the news outlet The Lever surfaced a recording where the CEO of a financial services company touted his relationship with Long and asserted that, if he was confirmed, Long planned to bring Czuchry on board at the IRS. In his written questions to Long, Wyden said Czuchry is also earning a $195,200 salary at OPM. Wyden also noted the fact 'Czuchry was one of many individuals who recently contributed to your Senate campaign fund.' Wyden went on to ask about Czuchry's role at OPM and whether Long wanted to have the attorney 'join' him at the IRS. 'Mr. Czuchry is not employed at OPM and does not plan on being employed by the IRS,' Long wrote in his response, which was submitted on Friday. However, OPM records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight last month described Czuchry as a 'senior advisor' at OPM. While Czuchry seems to have worked at the agency in the past, an OPM spokesperson told Bloomberg for a May 15 story that he had left. Czuchry also had an internal OPM calendar. Like the others belonging to Long and his associates, it was conspicuously empty. There were 27 items on Cuzchry's calendar in March and April of this year. Of those, ten were listed as 'tentative' and one was identified as 'free.' In May, Czuchry's calendar displayed six items, all of which were listed as either 'tentative' or 'free.' A second former OPM employee who left the agency earlier this year and declined to be named for fear of retaliation described Long and his associates' calendars as 'pristine' and said the absence of appointments on them was 'incredibly unusual and disturbing.' The employee had firsthand knowledge of the calendars and said they had raised concerns among others at the agency. 'To be a senior adviser and not be having meetings with various teams — particularly for these sweeping policy initiatives — is strange. They're trying to reimagine the federal workforce,' the employee said. 'They would be meeting with multiple teams. You would be seeing advising or fact finding scheduled throughout the day.' The employee also stressed that, due to its role providing oversight to other agencies, OPM is especially concerned with maintaining standards and procedures. Because of this, the person said, it was particularly problematic to 'have a pocket of four people who aren't contributing to personnel policy in any way but are taking salary.' They also echoed the concerns about recordkeeping and suggested the situation with Long and his associates is even more troubling given the Trump administration's supposed commitment to government efficiency. 'What are these people adding? Why are the American taxpayers paying for him and these three people? What are the taxpayers getting for this time that they have purchased? It doesn't look like anything and that's incredibly disturbing,' the former employee said, adding, 'Talk about 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' What is going on at the government personnel agency? … We always talk about the tone being set, so if this is happening at the personnel agency, what else is happening?'
