⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

“Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations”

Senate Veterans Affairs Committee

June 4, 2025 (recording here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witness & Written Testimony (linked) (Panel One):

• The Honorable Cheryl Mason: Nominee to be Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Witness & Written Testimony (linked) (Panel Two):

• Don Bergin: Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Keywords mentioned:

• Secretary Doug Collins, leadership roles, partisanship, impartiality, decision-making, transparency, communication

IN THEIR WORDS

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE

• Chairman Jerry Moran discussed the importance and difficulty of the two positions under consideration: Inspector General (IG) and Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs at the VA. He expressed appreciation for both nominees and their families, noting that these roles are vital to improving VA oversight and communication with Congress. The Chairman praised Ms. Cheryl Mason’s qualifications, outlining her bipartisan VA appointments and commitment to independent oversight. He also said that he looked forward to hearing how Mr. Don Bergen would improve the transparency and responsiveness of the VA, regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress.

• When he arrived, Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal added two key comments to his submitted opening statement. He warned that the Inspector General position must remain strictly nonpartisan and independent, pointing out that Ms. Mason’s prior political appointment within the VA was unprecedented for a nominee to this role. He referenced the prior administration’s pattern of firing Inspectors General, calling it illegal and damaging to oversight credibility. The Ranking Member then stated that Ms. Mason bore the burden of proof to demonstrate that she would truly act independently and fulfill the IG’s mission of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse—terms he claimed had become hollow under recent political conditions.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL ONE)

• Ms. Cheryl Mason began by sharing her deeply personal history, including the suicides of both her father, a WWII Navy veteran, and her brother, a National Guardsman. She explained how those experiences shaped her commitment to serving veterans and ensuring they receive the care they deserve. Ms. Mason described her decades of experience at the VA and her confirmation under President Trump as the first woman and military spouse to chair the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. She pledged to bring impartiality, legal expertise, and accountability to the role of Inspector General and pledged she would use the office to promote efficiency and root out waste, fraud, and abuse.

• Chairman Moran asked how Ms. Mason’s prior experience as a senior advisor to VA Secretary Doug Collins would inform her role as Inspector General and how she would maintain independence. Ms. Mason responded that she had a long history of impartiality at the VA, especially as a judge and Board Chair, and explained that her advisor role focused on conveying factual information, not political guidance. She asserted that her previous work prepared her for an independent watchdog role, adding that the Inspector General “has teeth,” which she believed was necessary for VA oversight.

• Chairman Moran then asked how she would balance her dual reporting responsibilities to the VA Secretary and Congress. Ms. Mason stated that she respected the separation of powers and underscored the importance of informing both entities to ensure transparency and accountability.

• The Chairman questioned why the VA had failed to implement over 500 outstanding IG recommendations and asked how she would address the backlog. Ms. Mason acknowledged the severity of the issue, proposed a system of inventory and follow-up, and committed to strengthening oversight to ensure better service for veterans.

• Ranking Member Blumenthal asked if Ms. Mason would launch an investigation into Secretary Collins’s mass firings, which the courts had ruled illegal. Ms. Mason replied that the IG must review issues brought by the Committee or others, but she declined to commit to investigating actions under current litigation. When asked about investigating the Secretary’s proposed reorganization, she said she would assess whether such an investigation would be appropriate when those actions occur.

• The Ranking Member pressed Ms. Mason about her involvement in staff reassignments and whether she had played a role in the realignment of Senior Executive Service personnel. Ms. Mason responded that she merely conveyed the Secretary’s directives and did not originate or manage those decisions.

• Ranking Member Blumenthal accused Ms. Mason of being evasive and questioned her loyalty, asking if she considered herself a loyal aide to the Secretary. Ms. Mason responded that she was loyal to veterans, not individuals, and reiterated that she worked for both the President and the VA Secretary.

• The Ranking Member then asked whether she had been involved in requests for VA employees to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). Ms. Mason stated that she had no involvement. When asked about her role in the VA’s broader reorganization, she said she had no part in planning the reductions and reiterated her advisor role focused on gathering and analyzing information.

• Sen. Tommy Tuberville asked if Ms. Mason would work with him to improve the VA’s fiduciary program, following IG reports highlighting failures. Ms. Mason committed to doing so and spoke briefly about the importance of the program.

• Sen. Tuberville asked how she would ensure the implementation of IG recommendations related to the Veterans Crisis Line and suicide prevention. Ms. Mason, referencing her personal connection to suicide loss, promised to ensure oversight of mental health initiatives, proper staffing, and effective crisis line operations.

• Sen. Tuberville then asked what her first action would be if confirmed. Ms. Mason claimed that she would assess the IG office, ensure its independence and resources, and prioritize closing out open recommendations.

• Sen. Patty Murray asked whether Ms. Mason participated in discussions about canceling contracts, ending DEI efforts, or eliminating LGBTQ outreach. Ms. Mason said that she was not involved in those actions and that her advisor portfolio focused on administrative performance and service delivery, not policy decisions tied to DEI or contracts.

• Sen. Murray asked about Ms. Mason’s engagement with the White House or the Department of Justice beyond the Presidential Personnel Office. Ms. Mason claimed that she had no contact except attending one VA-related swearing-in ceremony.

• Sen. Murray asked if Ms. Mason would provide a list of ongoing IG investigations within 30 days if confirmed. Ms. Mason agreed. Sen. Murray also asked if she would hold the VA accountable for statutorily required outreach even if leadership opposed it, and Ms. Mason committed to doing so.

• Then, Sen. Murray questioned whether Ms. Mason’s political appointments compromised her ability to act independently. Ms. Mason responded that she had served under seven administrations, and she re-emphasized her consistent impartiality in law and leadership roles.

• Sen. Maggie Hassan began by thanking Ms. Mason for her openness about suicide in her family, then asked whether she would follow the law if directed by the President to do otherwise. Ms. Mason promised to follow the law.

• Sen. Hassan asked if Ms. Mason supported the firing of IGs without the required congressional notice. Ms. Mason again declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

• Sen. Hassan asked whether Ms. Mason would recuse herself from IG investigations related to matters she had worked on at the VA. Ms. Mason claimed that she would, consistent with her prior recusals as a judge and Board Chair. Sen. Hassan then asked if she would continue all investigations initiated under the prior Inspector General. Ms. Mason confirmed that she would.

• Then, Sen. Hassan asked whether she would investigate wrongdoing at the VA regardless of NDAs signed by employees. Ms. Mason committed to doing so.

• Sen. Angus King asked Ms. Mason to explain how she could remain objective as the Inspector General given her close advisory role to Secretary Collins. Ms. Mason responded that she was brought back specifically for her independence and willingness to challenge conventional thinking, citing her history of standing up to internal pressure as Board Chair.

• Sen. King noted that the VA budget proposed cutting 100 IG positions and said that using NDAs in the restructuring process appeared unnecessary and possibly illegal. Ms. Mason replied that she would take those concerns under advisement and agreed that whistleblower protections must be enforced.

• Sen. King asked how often she saw Secretary Collins and whether they had a close relationship. Ms. Mason said that she saw him infrequently and denied having a close or friendly relationship. Chairman Moran asked her to clarify that remark and verify her lack of relationship with the Secretary. Upon her doing so, Sen. King referenced a comment Ms. Mason had made about the Secretary preferring Coke while she preferred Pepsi, saying it reflected more familiarity than she claimed. Ms. Mason responded that it was a light remark from a past encounter.

• Sen. Mazie Hirono asked whether Ms. Mason had ever engaged in sexual harassment or been involved in a settlement for such conduct. Ms. Mason replied that she had not, but had been the subject of harassment herself.

• Sen. Hirono then asked whether Ms. Mason had ever raised legal concerns with the Secretary about the firing of employees. Ms. Mason said that she did not, as she was unaware of the terminations until after they occurred. For a moment, she alluded to attorney-client privilege with the Secretary when declining to elaborate.

• Sen. Hirono raised serious concerns about Ms. Mason’s continued service after her nomination and prior political affiliations, calling into question her independence and impartiality. She cited a Washington Post article listing Ms. Mason among Trump nominees with partisan backgrounds and mentioned that the role of Inspector General required true independence from presidential influence.

• Sen. Tammy Duckworth challenged Ms. Mason’s claim that she had limited contact with the Secretary, arguing that her position within the Secretary’s suite placed her in close proximity and access. She then asked if Ms. Mason was invoking attorney-client privilege when she declined to answer Sen. Hirono’s earlier question. Ms. Mason clarified that she was not invoking privilege but rather refrained from discussing certain matters due to propriety, reiterating that she had not advised the Secretary on the plan to fire 80,000 employees.

• Sen. Duckworth questioned whether Inspectors General could truly be independent if they could be removed at will by a President. She then asked Ms. Mason to explain the significance of the 2008 IG Reform Act. After being provided a copy, Ms. Mason acknowledged that the law added protections, including a 30-day congressional notification requirement before an IG could be removed.

• Sen. Duckworth then asked whether President Trump violated the law when he fired Inspector General Michael Missal without cause or the required notice. Ms. Mason declined to offer a conclusion, citing pending litigation. Sen. Duckworth criticized Ms. Mason’s refusal to recognize what she called a clear legal violation and warned that IGs must be willing to “speak truth to power.”

• Sen. Duckworth asked a more direct question about the 2020 election. Ms. Mason stated that she believed President Biden won the election. When asked what she would do if ordered to act illegally by the VA Secretary or the President, Ms. Mason said that she would always follow the law.

• Ranking Member Blumenthal was granted a final follow-up and asked whether Ms. Mason had been involved in any employee terminations or contract cancellations in 2025. Ms. Mason stated clearly that she had not been involved in either. The Ranking Member then asked if she had served on President Trump’s transition team. Ms. Mason confirmed that she had, noting that her role was to speak with outgoing VA officials to gather information for incoming leadership.

• Ranking Member Blumenthal asked Ms. Mason to name three decisions or actions at the VA since the inauguration where she had played an advisory role. Ms. Mason replied that she could not identify specific decisions, as her role was to gather and relay information and provide recommendations, not to make or execute decisions. The Ranking Member expressed disbelief at her response and deemed her answers unsatisfactory.

• Chairman Moran invited Ms. Mason to offer any concluding remarks. Ms. Mason clarified that she had stepped out of her role as Senior Advisor to the Secretary and moved out of the Secretary’s suite shortly after her nomination. She reiterated that her role focused on advising based on her expertise from 28 years at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and was not one of decision-making authority. She acknowledged the skepticism from the Committee but maintained that her work was rooted in impartiality and a commitment to serving veterans.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL TWO)

• Mr. Don Bergin began by claiming the veteran community as his own, having been born at Walter Reed, raised by a West Point graduate, and surrounded by veterans affected by the limitations of the VA system. He shared his family’s deep military legacy and noted that his own service included combat deployments in Iraq as a Marine infantry commander. He also recounted nearly 20 years of experience on Capitol Hill, including roles in the Marine Corps Office of Legislative Affairs, various congressional offices and committees, and as National Security Council to Senator Cornyn. Mr. Bergin highlighted the importance of bipartisan collaboration between Congress and the VA in passing legislation. If confirmed, he pledged to be a tireless, cooperative advocate for veterans.

• Chairman Moran asked Mr. Bergin what actions he would take early in his tenure to improve VA communications with Congress and how he would measure success. Mr. Bergin responded that leadership is about taking on hard tasks and that he had already begun recommending personnel and process improvements as a senior advisor. He underlined the need to expand congressional relations staff and said that he would ensure responses to Congress are timely, relevant, and substantive.

• The Chairman stressed that VA responsiveness is not a matter of political convenience but a matter of life and death for veterans. He noted that constituents often bring problems to their members of Congress, and the Committee’s efforts to help veterans depend on prompt and honest responses from the VA. He urged Mr. Bergin to see the role as crucial to improving veterans’ outcomes, not just satisfying lawmakers.

• Ranking Member Blumenthal sharply criticized the VA’s current level of non-responsiveness, calling it unprecedented and bipartisan in its impact. He asked how Mr. Bergin explained the department’s failure to provide briefings and basic answers, especially about contracts and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team. Mr. Bergin clarified that he had not personally refused briefings or been involved in specific responses but had worked on improving the structure and readiness of the legislative affairs office.

• The Ranking Member asked if Mr. Bergin had ever urged Secretary Collins to take action to fix the department’s lack of responsiveness. Mr. Bergin responded that he had spoken with the Secretary about the need for timely and substantive communication and noted that policy changes between administrations were also part of the challenge. He said that he was focused on helping the VA provide better information and transparency going forward.

• Sen. King claimed that he supported Mr. Bergin’s nomination and viewed his prior advisory role as a qualification rather than a liability. He emphasized that the Committee is like a board of directors and should be provided with candid information, not stonewalled. Mr. Bergin agreed, stating that disagreement is acceptable but lack of transparency is not. He acknowledged that canceled contracts and the proposed reorganization had been handled poorly from a communication standpoint.

• Sen. King further criticized the lack of information on contract cancellations and workforce cuts, saying it created unnecessary suspicion and damaged trust. Mr. Bergin said that the Secretary shared his frustration and wanted to have a more open discussion with Congress. He explained that legal and deliberative challenges had slowed responses, but that his goal was to provide clear, finalized information that accurately reflected policy decisions. Sen. King concluded that the department should engage Congress earlier in decision-making rather than presenting finalized plans as a fait accompli.

• Sen. Hirono asked Mr. Bergin if he had ever committed or been disciplined for any sexual misconduct; he answered no to both questions. She then asked whether constituent services for veterans had been a priority in his prior congressional roles. Mr. Bergin responded affirmatively and underscored that constituent requests—especially from veterans—were among the most frequent and urgent in any congressional office.

• Sen. Hirono pressed Mr. Bergin to prioritize timely responses to congressional inquiries, including simple acknowledgments that the VA received their requests. Mr. Bergin agreed, called it a fair standard, and noted that the office currently only had two to three staff handling constituent issues for all of Congress. He reported that they were actively working to fill those vacancies to improve responsiveness.

• Sen. Hirono stated that the current lack of acknowledgments and delays in response were unacceptable and asked Mr. Bergin to fix it. Mr. Bergin committed to doing so and shared her frustration with veterans waiting months for answers. Sen. Hirono clarified that her criticism was aimed at leadership, not VA employees, and placed responsibility squarely on Secretary Collins for the department’s inadequate performance.

• Chairman Moran closed by asking Mr. Bergin if he would help ensure that the VA follows the letter and intent of congressional laws. Mr. Bergin agreed and reaffirmed his oath to uphold the Constitution and follow the law. He also committed to ensuring that the VA adheres to the intent of Congress in its implementation of policy.

SPECIAL TOPICS

JOIN THE NIMITZ NETWORK!

Enjoying our updates? Don’t keep it to yourself — forward this email to friends or colleagues who’d love to stay informed. They can subscribe here to become part of our growing community.