A Virginia-based federal magistrate judge granted Mary Comans, the former chief financial officer of FEMA, a rare "name-clearing" hearing, saying the Department of Homeland Security's accusations against her over an $80 million migrant-shelter grant were based entirely on false information. Judge William Fitzpatrick said the government's conduct was "outrageous" and included officials "at the highest levels of DHS."
Judge Fitzpatrick rebukes DHS over false claims against FEMA's former CFO Mary Comans
A Virginia-based federal magistrate judge granted Mary Comans, the former chief financial officer of FEMA, a rare "name-clearing" hearing, saying the Department of Homeland Security's accusations against her over an $80 million migrant-shelter grant were based entirely on false information. Judge William Fitzpatrick said the government's conduct was "outrageous" and included officials "at the highest levels of DHS."
DHS fired Comans over an $80 million grant to New York City that allowed for emergency sheltering of migrants, one of many awarded to cities under the Shelter and Services Program created by Congress to help pay for housing migrants. Shortly after awarding the grant, DHS clawed the money back and accused Comans and others of "unilaterally mak[ing] egregious payments for luxury NYC hotels for migrants," arguing the move ran afoul of an executive order from President Trump pausing funding to non-profits aiding migrants.
Fitzpatrick wrote that such "name-clearing" hearings are rare, but said the move was essential "given the outrageous government conduct, including by those at the highest levels of DHS." In his decision he wrote: "For reasons unfathomable to this Court, officials chose to turn the power of the federal government against a singular employee with an impeccable record of public service. In short, Ms. Comans was professionally targeted and personally attacked by government officials for no legitimate reason."
The judge listed accusations he said were untrue: "To be clear, it was the stated position of the United States Government that Ms. Comans acted in a criminal manner with a criminal intent. That is untrue. Ms. Comans was publicly accused of knowingly and 'egregiously' misspending federal funds. That is untrue." He also wrote that she was accused of laundering "forbidden funding," of willfully violating a presidential executive order and the orders of the DHS secretary, of circumventing leadership, of frustrating the will of the American people and of undermining public safety, and said each of those accusations was untrue.
Comans and the awarding of the grant were discussed in public statements from then Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Elon Musk, with Fitzpatrick concluding each "engaged in a coordinated public relations campaign to impugn the personal and professional integrity of Ms. Comans." The judge wrote: "Armed only with false statements, high-ranking government officials undertook a premeditated campaign to impugn the personal and professional integrity of Ms. Comans, a nonpartisan, career public servant. Their intent was to disseminate false and derogatory information about Ms. Comans as widely as possible."
New York City sued over the rescission of the grant funding in February of last year, and Comans sued over her termination the next month. New York ultimately regained the funding from the disrupted grant after litigation brought by other cities.
- The source does not state the date of the judge's decision.
- The source does not give calendar years for the grant rescission or for the lawsuits filed by New York City and by Comans, referring only to "February of last year" and "the next month."
- The source does not state what legal effect the decision has beyond the name-clearing hearing, or whether it orders any action by DHS.
- The source does not quote or describe what Kristi Noem or Elon Musk said in their public statements about Comans and the grant.
- The source does not state the status of Comans's lawsuit over her termination or of New York City's lawsuit over the grant rescission.
- The source does not name the other cities whose litigation led to New York regaining the funding, or state how much of the $80 million was restored.