Information
Appeal Type
Hiring Blacklist
Explain why your appeal should be successful
The misrepresentation charge cannot stand. The meeting with DEA leadership that forms the basis of this allegation was attended not only by myself, but also by the Secretary of the Interior, the Press Secretary, and critically, Peaches - a member of the Executive Office of the President. The EOP had direct representation in that meeting. You cannot misrepresent something to a person who was present for the discussion themselves.
Furthermore, my attendance at that meeting was consistent with my role as a member of the State Department at the time. This was not a covert or personal visit — it was conducted alongside senior White House officials. Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Press Secretary, who attended the same meeting under the same circumstances, have been placed on the Hiring Blacklist. Applying this sanction solely to me for participation in a shared, witnessed event is arbitrary and inconsistent.
My resignation letter further corroborates this as I voluntarily disclosed my DEA intentions in writing to Cabinet leadership, which is the opposite of concealment.
Justification for the Action you're appealing
This blacklist was issued after I had already departed voluntarily and in good standing. The cited misrepresentation charge is directly refuted by the fact that an EOP member, Peaches, was present at the very meeting in question. The productivity concern relates to a brief interim period with no documented expectations. Two other officials present at the same DEA meeting have faced no consequences. This action is selective, unsupported by evidence, and appears retaliatory in nature given its timing following my move to the DEA.
