Joe Neguse TORCHES Burgum Over Trump’s $13M “No-Bid” Lincoln Memorial Contract

Ajouté : 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]Congressman Joe Neguse confronted Interior Secretary Deb Haaland over a controversial $13 million no-bid contract tied to renovations at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

[00:00:10]Neguse pressed Haaland over why the contract bypassed competitive bidding, whether political connections influenced the decision, and why the administration believed the project qualified as an emergency.

[00:00:21]The heated exchange quickly turned into a broader fight over government transparency, public trust, and accountability inside the Trump administration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.

[00:00:34]I want to start first with a letter that myself and Senator Michael Bennet Colorado wrote to your agency on April 29th. This was a letter April 29th of this year in regards to the historically low snowpack that we're experiencing, as you know, in the Rocky Mountain West, including in Colorado. Obviously very concerned about the wildfire season that is upon us. The letter makes a number of requests around prepositioning assets, extending federal contracts for aerial resources. I would just ask you your commitment to respond to that letter if you might be willing to make that commitment to me.

[00:01:03]>> Yeah, absolutely. And I appreciate your attention to this. We we are facing a potentially dangerous situation with the low water levels in the Colorado River Basin relative to wildfire, and that's why again we appreciate all the support we can get from you in in unifying the new US wildland firefighting group.

[00:01:21]That's going to allow us to have a essentially a joint chiefs of staff that can make the command and control decisions that you're asking us to look at. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[00:01:28]We look forward to your response on that I want to follow up on a point that the ranking member referenced. This is in regards to a decision that your agency made last year in December. As you know, removing the two federal holidays that honor black history from the free entrance day list for the National Park Service. You're familiar with that decision.

[00:01:48]Yes. Okay.

[00:01:50]I believe those two days, by the way, are Martin Luther King Day, as you know, and Juneteenth.

[00:01:55]It's my view that Juneteenth provides all citizens with an opportunity to really recommit ourselves, renew our commitment to equality.

[00:02:05]Would you agree with that statement?

[00:02:06]Uh yeah, absolutely.

[00:02:09]I guess part of my confusion about why, given your agreement on that front, given the fact that as governor, you proclaimed Juneteenth back in North Dakota several years ago, why you would now allow the agency, or I presume you're involved in that decision, to remove those two holidays from the list.

[00:02:28]It just strikes me that that is not consistent with the view that you just articulated. And I would urge uh the National Park Service to reverse that decision.

[00:02:38]I I think it is short-sighted, and I don't think it's in the best interest of the country. I recognize my colleagues disagree with me on the other side of the aisle, perhaps some of them, uh but that's my view.

[00:02:48]I want to ask you about one last topic.

[00:02:50]Can I just say I want to make sure on that top on that topic that we understand that no one is uh changing these holidays, the holiday designation, whatever. There was a uh an ability to choose free days, uh and part of that was, you know, where do we space the free days, where do we put them, do they match up against weekends?

[00:03:07]And >> And and and again, trying to get more of the more of those days into the summer months when we have higher visitation was to >> At the same time, I think you could understand how many Americans would perceive a decision by your department to remove Martin Luther King Day as a free entrance day the National Park Service. I I just at the end of the day, again, We'll have to agree to disagree >> on that front, but um I will move on.

[00:03:27]Are you familiar with Atlantic Industrial Coatings?

[00:03:31]I I'm not um familiar with that uh So, Atlantic Industrial Coatings is a company. Are you familiar with that company?

[00:03:38]>> You're saying Atlantic? Atlantic Industrial Coatings, correct?

[00:03:42]Are you familiar with it or I'm not familiar with Atlantic. Okay, Atlantic Industrial Coatings is the company that received a no-bid federal contract for the project at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Are you familiar with that now? Is that >> I'm familiar with that project, yes. But not the company.

[00:04:00]I I wasn't familiar that with that specific name of the company. Okay.

[00:04:04]Um you're familiar with the fact that a company received a no bid contract to do the work on that project, correct?

[00:04:10]I I'm familiar that we have that we're working on a project to uh restore uh the Reflecting Pool before the uh summer season with record attendance. Yes.

[00:04:21]Yes, and that was through a no bid $13 million contract, right? That's not That's not up for debate. That's a fact.

[00:04:26]>> I I I'm positive that we followed all of the required bidding rules. So you're you're emphasizing you're emphasizing the word no bid like something nefarious has happened. I reject that.

[00:04:35]>> it to me. Here, I'll ask you the question.

[00:04:37]My understanding of the federal procurement rules is that a no bid contract is reserved for situations where, quote, any delay would cause serious injury to the government.

[00:04:48]W- What is your your proposition is what? That there'd be serious injury to the government if this company didn't get the $13 million contract to do this particular project right now? Is that that Well, I think we do have a sense of urgency. I mean, we got handed a record amount of deferred maintenance. We had 19 fountains across the city that didn't work.

[00:05:05]>> That's the serious injury to the government? The serious injury to the government?

[00:05:09]>> Well, I'm not I'm not I'm not a Well, I suppose a lawyer could decide that, but I think that maybe all of us could agree that we would want to have our nation's capital looking great for the 250th. I mean, this is a common sense decision.

[00:05:20]>> I would say I just last question.

[00:05:22]Who picked this company?

[00:05:24]Because President Trump a few months ago in a New York Times article said, "I have a guy who's unbelievable at doing swimming pools. He looked at it. He called me up. He said, 'Sir, we can do something on it.'" Last night he posted on Truth Social, "Also, I did not give out the contract.

[00:05:37]Interior did to a contractor I did not know and have never used before." So Interior, he's talking about you. Did you give this $13 million no bid contract to this company that's never done business with the federal government before? The gentleman's time has expired. I think the secretary could answer the question. The the gentleman that you're talking about that has done construction work regarding pools and fountains for President Trump is not part of this contract. He's work He just He's just a citizen that cared about it and offered some free advice. There is There's nothing there there in terms of any dollars flowing to anybody that worked for President Trump.

[00:06:09]>> picked this company? That's what I'm getting at.

[00:06:11]>> The National Park The National Park Service and the the leaders on the National Mall were the ones that picked it. I I They went through the process, picked the the person that was best, and part of their selection process was picking somebody who had the capability to to complete the project on in a time frame and in a budget that would and would actually fix the problem. I mean, there were past presidents that have worked on this thing. It's been shut for 2 years. Read the article. It was There was $38 million spent on this between 2010 and 2012 and it was never fixed.

[00:06:38]This hearing exchange between Congressman Joe Neguse and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum may have sounded at first like a technical argument about a reflecting pool renovation.

[00:06:47]But underneath it was a much bigger political fight about transparency, government contracts, public trust, and the growing concern over whether political influence is shaping federal spending decisions behind closed doors.

[00:06:59]Neguse approached the hearing strategically.

[00:07:02]He began calmly, almost cooperatively, discussing wildfire concerns in Colorado and federal preparedness efforts.

[00:07:10]That opening mattered because it established a professional tone before pivoting into more confrontational territory.

[00:07:16]Then he shifted to cultural issues, specifically the Interior Department's decision to remove Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth from the National Park Service's free entry holiday schedule.

[00:07:27]That section of the hearing was politically significant because it touched on symbolism and national identity.

[00:07:33]Neguse framed the removal not merely as a scheduling change, but as a message.

[00:07:38]In Washington, symbolic decisions often matter as much as policy decisions because they signal values and priorities.

[00:07:45]Bergum tried to present the change as logistical, spacing out free days, boosting summer visitation, calendar management.

[00:07:52]But Neguse's point was that many Americans would not interpret it that way.

[00:07:57]They would see two holidays deeply connected to black history and civil rights being removed from a public access program under a conservative administration.

[00:08:05]That distinction is crucial politically.

[00:08:08]Bergum defended it as operational.

[00:08:10]Neguse framed it as cultural and moral.

[00:08:13]And that disagreement set the tone for what came next.

[00:08:17]Because the hearing then evolved into something much sharper.

[00:08:20]A confrontation over a $13 million no-bid federal contract tied to renovations at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

[00:08:28]This is where the exchange became politically dangerous for the administration. No-bid contract is one of the most politically radioactive phrases in government oversight.

[00:08:37]To many Americans, it immediately raises suspicions. Was the process fair?

[00:08:42]Who benefited?

[00:08:43]Was there favoritism?

[00:08:45]Was political access involved?

[00:08:48]Neguse clearly understood that dynamic and pressed hard on it.

[00:08:52]His argument was essentially, how does urgently repairing a reflecting pool justify bypassing competitive bidding?

[00:08:59]That's a powerful line of attack because it challenges not just the spending itself, but the legal and ethical reasoning behind it.

[00:09:06]Bergum's defense relied heavily on urgency and public presentation.

[00:09:10]In other words, Bergum framed the issue as practical governance.

[00:09:14]The federal government trying to fix visible public infrastructure quickly and efficiently.

[00:09:20]But Neguse was not satisfied because the larger issue wasn't speed, it was influence.

[00:09:25]That became obvious when he referenced comments by President Donald Trump himself.

[00:09:30]Trump publicly bragging that he had a guy who specialized in pools immediately changed the political context.

[00:09:36]Because now the question wasn't merely why was there a no-bid contract?

[00:09:40]From Bergin's perspective, this likely looked like common sense executive action. Fix deteriorating national landmarks quickly before globally significant celebrations.

[00:09:50]But Neguse countered with institutional accountability.

[00:09:54]His argument was even projects with patriotic goals must still follow transparent rules.

[00:10:00]That's a classic oversight argument in Congress.

[00:10:03]Good intentions do not exempt agencies from procurement standards.

[00:10:07]And finally, the exchange reflected something broader about modern congressional hearings. They are increasingly battles over narrative rather than simply fact-finding exercises.

[00:10:17]Neguse wanted viewers to walk away asking, was this contract steered politically?

[00:10:22]Bergin wanted viewers to walk away thinking, the administration is finally fixing neglected infrastructure efficiently.

[00:10:29]Those are two entirely different stories.