- A federal watchdog found Ryan Zinke violated federal ethics rules while he served in Trump's cabinet.
- Zinke resigned in December 2018 under a cloud of numerous investigations.
- The Interior Department's inspector general referred its findings to the Justice Department, which declined to bring charges.
A government watchdog has found that President Donald Trump's interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, broke ethics rules and lied about his actions when he repeatedly acted on behalf of his private foundation while in office.
Zinke promised he would resign from the foundation and end his work on its behalf after joining Trump's cabinet in March 2017. But in a report released Wednesday the Interior Department's inspector general found 64 instances of Zinke communicating with developers between August 2017 and July 2018 about a project that would use some of his foundation's land. Zinke falsely told a government ethics official in 2018 that his interactions with the developers were "purely social."
Zinke resigned from the Trump administration in December 2018 amid multiple investigations into his potential conflicts of interests, travel, and other activities.
According to the IG report, a senior executive at Halliburton, a multinational energy company, was one of the developers and primary investors for the project, known as 95 Karrow. The inspector general did not find that Zinke took any official action "to specifically benefit Halliburton," but it did refer the rest of its findings to the Justice Department. DOJ, per the report, declined to prosecute Zinke last summer. But federal investigators found that Zinke "did not comply with his duty of candor" when he was questioned about his involvement in the Veterans Peace Park Foundation despite promising to recuse himself from its business.
Zinke, a former member of the US House who's now running for Congress again, blasted the IG report in a statement from his campaign.
"A Biden Administration led report published false information, and was shared with the press as a political hit job - real shocker," the campaign said in a statement to Insider. "They didn't even bother to talk to Ryan Zinke, staff or anyone else who was supposedly involved in the non-existent 'negotiations.'"
At least one of the campaign's claims is inaccurate. The inspector general's report said that IG staffers requested to meet with Zinke, but attorneys for Zinke, his wife Lola, and the developers all declined their requests. The inspector general's office ultimately obtained emails and text messages related to the project by subpoenaing the developers.
The inspector general, Mark Greenblatt, is a Republican and was appointed by Trump.
The Washington Post reports that a separate investigation into Zinke's decision to deny two Connecticut tribes' request for a casino permit was referred to the DOJ and is ongoing.
In its 34-page report, the inspector general lays out numerous instances in which Zinke engaged in foundation business. In August 2017, Zinke wrote in an email, "I am working with the [developers of the 95 Karrow project] to accommodate parking on the north east side." (Federal officials redacted the names of developers). Just over a month later, Zinke attached a hand-drawn diagram to a different email.
The developers themselves also openly discussed Zinke's involvement. "Talk with Zinke went well. He is on board. All smoothed out," one developer wrote to another in September 2017.
Investigators also found evidence of at least one in-person meeting on August 3, 2017 when Zinke and a group of developers met in his office and later took a private tour of the Lincoln Memorial. Interior officials have access to closed-off areas of buildings under its purview, which include national monuments in and around Washington, D.C..
The Post reported in 2018 that Zinke frequently took advantage of this perk for VIPs at either his or his wife Lola's request. The inspector general's report said it weighed whether the Lincoln Memorial tour violated federal regulations aimed at preventing officials from abusing their offices, but concluded they did not have "sufficient information about the nature of the discussions."